Kia Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey I took out the top part of my airbox because I was thinking of buying a cone filter. I saw a second filter in the top part of the airbox. It says "do not remove" so of course i removed it. So I still have the factory air filter in there but took out the smaller filter. I had to drill it to get it out. Its been out about 3 days now, in dash mpg went up about 3 mpg since i reset it and no CEL lit up on dash so everything is good. Did anyone else do this??
 

·
Registered
2011 Kia Sportage EX
Joined
·
105 Posts
It's a carbon filter. When the engine is turned off, it is there to prevent gas fumes from escaping up the air intake out into the environment. It also does the same thing during a cold start when the fuel mix is more lean.

So taking it out is slightly comparable to removing a catalytic converter. Sure, you'll get better performance, but people will gag and birds will fall from the sky. I'm not sure if removal of this part will fail emissions testing though.
 

·
Registered
Rip 04 nissan sentra 07 honda fit sport trade in now my new 2011 Kia sportage
Joined
·
32 Posts
dose it have to be replaced ask the dealer and they dont know any thing about it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Interesting. At first I thought he was talking about a grid that reduces turbulence, or something MAF related.

I'd actually keep that filter in a box somewhere. Activated carbon (activated charcoal) won't absorb much gasoline vapour since it'll be quickly spent capturing impurities in all that airflow. Large HVAC carbon filter lifetimes are generally <6 months. Plus, ask any F-22 pilot about the dust that comes off activated carbon; they don't like breathing it, and neither will engines.

I hate second-guessing engineers when it comes to catalytic converters and such technology, but until I learn this has a greater purpose, I'd remove it. KiaMonster is right about emissions testing (especially if you live somewhere strange like California). I'm skeptical about MPG gains, but a small carbon filter would reduce airflow & power.

--

I'm a fan of K&N filters (and I'm looking at buying one this weekend for a WOT-stalling motor), but they're not a substitute for OEM-spec airfilters. Check out these results to choose the tradeoffs.
 

·
Registered
2015 Sorento EX V6 AWD Ebony Black
Joined
·
1,153 Posts

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX AWD
Joined
·
840 Posts
LOL @ people claiming noticeable power gains and big improvements in mileage.

I am sure Kia engineers are reading these threads, kicking themselves in the butts, saying "why didn't we think of that".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
I mentioned this a while ago. No one cared, or payed attention :rolleyes: Mileage & power improved by adding a K&N filter and removing the carbon filter.
I wasn't here back then ;-)

I haven't seen a photo, but if Kia essentially stuck a Brita filter in the intake (I'm expecting HVAC carbon-impregnated fabric), it'll reduce airflow like a hairball. There are extreme emissions standards in places, so maybe new activated-carbon fabric will help a new car pass.

My understanding is that increased airflow (K&N etc) can improve power in modern computerized cars. The MassAirflowSensor detects the increased air, telling the EngineControlUnit, which increases the amount of fuel used to maintain the proper fuel/air ratio. Extra fuel and air means extra combustion, increasing power. Only problem is that it is burning more fuel, so neither K&N or Injen claim fuel efficiency gains. The added power means theoretical efficiency shouldn't go down, but it shouldn't go up either. Fuel efficiency would go up in a non-ECU (decades old) vehicle that was running rich (too much fuel, not enough air). I'm glad if fuel efficiency improves after a mod, but it shouldn't be because of this mod. Estimates/surveys find driving habits can mean 5 to 33% of MPG, a huge variable making real-world testing difficult.

I am sure Kia engineers read these threads, kicking themselves, saying "why didn't we think of that":rolleyes:
Engineers can be wrong, and engineers can't always make decisions (ever read Dilbert?). There's many layers of Marketing and Management and Government Liaisons/Lobbyists and more, meddling with design. I can't imagine anyone proposing activated carbon as their Emissions Engineering Solution. If you meant the K&N filter, it trades filter efficiency for airflow, reducing engine lifetime -- the star that shines slightly dimmer lasts slightly longer ;-)
 

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX AWD
Joined
·
840 Posts
The point is that neither a simple air filter, nor a carbon doodad removal will add ANY noticeable power or MPG increases. Period. This isn't the age of smog motors or inefficient turbo engines.

I know engineers will make choices based on the common man, not always the enthusiast, so they will trade a little power for a little silence. But to assume that these guys are giving up 20whp for a few db, people are out of their minds. You will never feel 10hp or less. Never.
 

·
Registered
2015 Sorento EX V6 AWD Ebony Black
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Kia & hyundai are too busy trying to stifle these engines with a carbon filter to a strct emission standard set by the Northeastern states where they only sell PZEV (partial zero vehicle emission standards) with the 2.4 delivering 173hp, everywhere else in the good old U.S.A. they're rated at 178hp without this carbon filter.

I have no idea what they have on the turbo/SX models?

But, I beg to differ with you, I have noticed a big improvement in mileage/power without the carbon filter, and with a K&N filter.

Just got 24mpg average around town in hilly/curvy rural Pa. on my AWD 2.4litre Tucson
 

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX AWD
Joined
·
840 Posts
Kia & hyundai are too busy trying to stifle these engines with a carbon filter to a strct emission standard set by the Northeastern states where they only sell PZEV (partial zero vehicle emission standards) with the 2.4 delivering 173hp, everywhere else in the good old U.S.A. they're rated at 178hp without this carbon filter.

I have no idea what they have on the turbo/SX models?

But, I beg to differ with you, I have noticed a big improvement in mileage/power without the carbon filter, and with a K&N filter.

Just got 24mpg average around town in hilly/curvy rural Pa. on my AWD 2.4litre Tucson
5 HP......5 crank HP and you're trying to tell me that you can actually FEEL a difference?

Sorry, I call BS. Take the car to the track, with and without the filter, or run it on a dyno both ways. Not only will it not make extra power that anyone will be able to use, but you won't feel or notice it either. You might be lucky to knock 1/100th of a second off your 1/4 mile time with 10hp or less. Maybe.
 

·
Premium Member
2017 Kia Niro Touring w/Tech Pkg, Blue/Grey
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
5 HP......5 crank HP and you're trying to tell me that you can actually FEEL a difference?

Sorry, I call BS. Take the car to the track, with and without the filter, or run it on a dyno both ways. Not only will it not make extra power that anyone will be able to use, but you won't feel or notice it either. You might be lucky to knock 1/100th of a second off your 1/4 mile time with 10hp or less. Maybe.
Right on.............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
To assume they're giving up 20whp for a few db, people are out of their minds. You will never feel 10hp or less.
That's probably fair.

With that Kia estimate of ~5hp, it would be half your noticibility estimate. Add another small modification, more than removing a felt pad but still unnoticable, and the two combined can be noticable. ~3% of horsepower maybe unnoticible, but I wouldn't say insignificant.

I'm not an engineer. I still think that an activated-carbon filter for a car engine's intake is absurd, like Clarkson's lime soda crystal exhaust solution. It'll probably spend itself adsorbing ozone in traffic and shedding carbon dust into compression before it adsorbs gasoline vapours travelling against the intake airflow.

--
It would be interesting if this is in the SX. A restrictive filter before a turbocharger would likely have more effect.

I'm surprised there would be meaningful restrictions on t2.0L and 2.4L engines in the land of the big-block V8, but I have trouble imagining 7.6L engines.
 

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX AWD
Joined
·
840 Posts
You would still have to add quite a few 2-3hp mods before you can actually notice, feel and use any of it. Obviously the vehicle's weight, gear ratios, etc come into play, but speaking in regards to a Sportage, you won't ever see a difference in a few ponies here and there, you won't notice it until you add about 20whp.

But you bring up a good point in that severe restrictions on a turbo motor can really rob some power. These days, the engineers are pretty good at keeping the intakes and exhausts free flowing, with the exception of catalytic converters (hence why catbacks and intakes do almost nothing on new turbo cars, but running test pipes will do good things).

I went out and checked, I didn't see anything like this on my SX. I would be interested in it, solely for the extra noise, the engine is a little buzzy, I would rather hear intake growl and turbo spooling. Also thought about cutting off that silencer right after the filter box, no power, just noise. Wonder if anyone has done it yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Sounds like you might prefer exhaust modifications. There's catback kits (7ism, JunBL, others(?), and custom), and hopefully compatible "high-flow" cats; environmentalishness is a personal (if not Government-mandated) choice, and I choose the cat, but flow is good. SX has upgraded exhaust (necessary for a turbo), IIRC 2.5in->3in pipes? Still, I don't know anything about the Optima, but I did read one review claiming "Optima and Sportage SX share the same engine....less-powerful in (Sportage, due to) more exhaust backpressure". I wouldn't want to calculate or toy with exhaust modifications in a NA vehicle, but backpressure works against a turbo more than scavenging helps.

I researched catbacks months ago, particularly for Genesis Coupe 2.0t (nobody dyno tests sportages). I don't remember if I found independent tests, but others collectively told a story of roughly +10hp and +10ft-lb across the revband. Maybe it'll be very loud, and the 10 may be unnoticeable. Still, 10hp plus a few more elsewhere and some weight shedding, could make for a fun customized actually-better car.

I like mods. They add up. Regardless, I still don't understand the point of the charcoal filter. I've heard of ORVR, and intake manifold gaskets can leak, but fuel vapour leaking out the intake? Catalytic converters aren't 100% efficient, so the hydrocarbons in the exhaust must be exponentially higher, and the only carbon put there is soot. If it's a real problem, there'll be a better VOC-trap solution. Anyone have a link for info on vehicle charcoal intake filters?
 

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX FWD
Joined
·
354 Posts
Anyone have a link for info on vehicle charcoal intake filters?
i have searched high and low on kgis and i can't even find mention or an entry for these. weird.

i can't even find the entry that talks about the air cleaner, airbox, or the intake before the manifold.
 

·
Registered
2012 Sportage SX AWD
Joined
·
840 Posts
Sounds like you might prefer exhaust modifications. There's catback kits (7ism, JunBL, others(?), and custom), and hopefully compatible "high-flow" cats; environmentalishness is a personal (if not Government-mandated) choice, and I choose the cat, but flow is good. SX has upgraded exhaust (necessary for a turbo), IIRC 2.5in->3in pipes? Still, I don't know anything about the Optima, but I did read one review claiming "Optima and Sportage SX share the same engine....less-powerful in (Sportage, due to) more exhaust backpressure". I wouldn't want to calculate or toy with exhaust modifications in a NA vehicle, but backpressure works against a turbo more than scavenging helps.

I researched catbacks months ago, particularly for Genesis Coupe 2.0t (nobody dyno tests sportages). I don't remember if I found independent tests, but others collectively told a story of roughly +10hp and +10ft-lb across the revband. Maybe it'll be very loud, and the 10 may be unnoticeable. Still, 10hp plus a few more elsewhere and some weight shedding, could make for a fun customized actually-better car.

I like mods. They add up. Regardless, I still don't understand the point of the charcoal filter. I've heard of ORVR, and intake manifold gaskets can leak, but fuel vapour leaking out the intake? Catalytic converters aren't 100% efficient, so the hydrocarbons in the exhaust must be exponentially higher, and the only carbon put there is soot. If it's a real problem, there'll be a better VOC-trap solution. Anyone have a link for info on vehicle charcoal intake filters?
I gotta be honest, I am not sure where I stand on an exhaust for this thing. I kind of enjoy the quiet ride (well quiet compared to my previous cars), so something like a turbo-back exhaust is out of the question, so are test pipes. I would be curious to hear some catbacks on the SX though, even just a different muffler.

I would still like some intake noise and turbo spooling too, sometimes half the fun of driving is listening to the car itself. I loved the way my 350Z sounded at WOT and downshifting.
 

·
Registered
1.7 CRDI sand track
Joined
·
540 Posts
There is an android application out there somewhere,that lets you play the sound of various engines through your speakers,as you mush the gas pedal. If only i could remember,where i saw it. Maybe someone here knows what i am talking about. :)
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top