K&n Vs Ractive

Vid6639 · 30th March 2007, 16:14

Yup same with me RT. went with K&N stock replacement on my lancer. cost me 6K. now I feel its a waste. The intake sound is more than the OE but i really dint find any improvement in performance.

Plus I thought the mileage would increase. I was getting 10+kmpl in city after the filter I just about touch 9kmpl.

elf · 30th March 2007, 20:35

vid69: Get the Universal with the Cold Air Intake pipe, etc.

That way you can spend even more money for the same performance.

Strange though. Here's a guy who gets 9kmpl from a Lancer & cribs. On a good day, I get 7.5.

"I was crying because I had no shoes, 'till I saw a man who had no feet".

And no, that's not a rishism.

theMAG · 30th March 2007, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid6639

The intake sound is more than the OE but i really dint find any improvement in performance.

You're one unlucky not-a-lady. I've got stock replacement K&N on my Swift - and I felt a perceptible change for the better. The moment I drove it out after the fitment some 8 months ago - I noticed the engine had gone deathly silent compared to before. Also a slight - but noticable increase in pickup - and I'm very sure this isnt placebo. Also the mileage - I get regularly ~ 15.5 kmpl with AC on 85% and Shell regular. I'd like to think the positive chagnes are due to the K&N.

That said - get rid of your Lancer engine - retain the filter - and plonk it into a Mivec.

elf · 30th March 2007, 20:55

Maggie's one lucky lady. Excellent mileage. Quiet engine. Lovely wit. And it ain't a placebo.

You buying MIVECs for the 30000 of us on the forum that have the stock 1.5s in our Lancers, darling?

Mebbe we should plonk a K&N onto her. From what she says, she can only get better. Quiter definitely.

v1p3r · 30th March 2007, 21:29

Maybe with a Mivec you'll have enough power to operate the windscreen washers at the same time as the wipers!

manson · 30th March 2007, 22:55

Getting back to Ractive, i ve had one on my ohc since over a year now, and have i think been a reason for a few members on the forum doing the same.
I noticed a difference in the mid range of the car, seemed to have gotten better, the car seems to pull better even from the lower rpms.
Even if the gains are physchological, i'd just buy a Ractive filter for the Sound!!

manson.

theMAG · 31st March 2007, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by elf

Maggie's one lucky lady. Excellent mileage. Quiet engine. Lovely wit. And it ain't a placebo.

You buying MIVECs for the 30000 of us on the forum that have the stock 1.5s in our Lancers, darling?

Mebbe we should plonk a K&N onto her. From what she says, she can only get better. Quiter definitely.

Sure - I'd love to buy Mivecs for all ya unmentionables; I'm expecting some future illegal kid of mine to be the top honcho at RBI. So some patience please till this illegal kid comes along (I'm trying my best).

Btw -thats a stock replacement K&N I got - altho I felt 4.5k is high for what its done as mentioned in my earlier post, I've no 2nd second thoughts myself for having put it. But I'll recommend to anyone who cares to listen that instead of a stock replacement filter they might as well spend another 1.5K and go in for the K&N conical-preferably Typhoon with cold air intake.

Kaizer Sozay · 31st March 2007, 01:17

Where can one get ractive filters in bombay?

BUSA · 31st March 2007, 02:02

@ Kaizer - You will get them at Vipers.

shrivz · 31st March 2007, 10:03

I have previously posted my opinion on ractive in one thread, dont remember which, so here goes again:

I've been using a ractive EV500 polyurathane filter for about a year now. bought it for Rs. 2300/- The car's definitaly improved with respect to bottom - mid range torque. I can compare directly with my dad's baleno altura and my baleno sedan (both have the same G16B engine)
Also there's a drop in performance whenever i put back the stock air box when i give the car for servicing.

So yes, I'd say Ractive is worth every penny you pay..

Kaizer Sozay · 1st April 2007, 00:30

Mods can we get a poll started here please.
Two main parameters FE vs performance of both the filters

japneet_b · 1st April 2007, 02:01

t-bhp brothers please help ...i want an air filter for my ikon 1.6 but not available in jalandhar punjab....if i go to delhi which one should i get for my car....and what difference will i see in my cars performance???

rohan_fonseca · 1st April 2007, 02:37

Sorry BUSA for the late reply. It wasn't at HPM. My logic in the SS filter heating up was that, since the metal gets hotter than cotton, it would result in heating up the air in the intake pipe. But that said; the air could be passing so quick into the intake that it might not have enough time to absorb the heat.

elf · 1st April 2007, 15:30

rohan_fonseca: You're right. The air passes through a filter & pipes so fast that it has no time to absorb the heat.

GTO · 2nd April 2007, 12:53

Quote:

Mods can we get a poll started here please.

Done. Public poll added.

View Poll Results: Which offers better performance?
K&N	40	59.70%
Ractive	27	40.30%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

30th March 2007, 16:14	#61
Vid6639 Team-BHP Support Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 17,730 Thanked: 43,482 Times View My Garage	Yup same with me RT. went with K&N stock replacement on my lancer. cost me 6K. now I feel its a waste. The intake sound is more than the OE but i really dint find any improvement in performance. Plus I thought the mileage would increase. I was getting 10+kmpl in city after the filter I just about touch 9kmpl.
	() Thanks

30th March 2007, 20:35	#62
elf BANNED Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,039 Thanked: 13 Times View My Garage	vid69: Get the Universal with the Cold Air Intake pipe, etc. That way you can spend even more money for the same performance. Strange though. Here's a guy who gets 9kmpl from a Lancer & cribs. On a good day, I get 7.5. "I was crying because I had no shoes, 'till I saw a man who had no feet". And no, that's not a rishism.
	() Thanks

30th March 2007, 20:55	#64
elf BANNED Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,039 Thanked: 13 Times View My Garage	Maggie's one lucky lady. Excellent mileage. Quiet engine. Lovely wit. And it ain't a placebo. You buying MIVECs for the 30000 of us on the forum that have the stock 1.5s in our Lancers, darling? Mebbe we should plonk a K&N onto her. From what she says, she can only get better. Quiter definitely.
	() Thanks

30th March 2007, 21:29	#65
v1p3r Senior - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: BLR / DXB / LON Posts: 5,334 Thanked: 6,896 Times View My Garage	Maybe with a Mivec you'll have enough power to operate the windscreen washers at the same time as the wipers!
	() Thanks

30th March 2007, 22:55	#66
manson Team-BHP Support Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bombay Posts: 3,934 Thanked: 4,169 Times View My Garage	Getting back to Ractive, i ve had one on my ohc since over a year now, and have i think been a reason for a few members on the forum doing the same. I noticed a difference in the mid range of the car, seemed to have gotten better, the car seems to pull better even from the lower rpms. Even if the gains are physchological, i'd just buy a Ractive filter for the Sound!! manson.
	() Thanks

31st March 2007, 01:17	#68
Kaizer Sozay BHPian Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 333 Thanked: 5 Times View My Garage	Where can one get ractive filters in bombay?
	() Thanks

31st March 2007, 02:02	#69
BUSA Senior - BHPian Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bombay Posts: 5,130 Thanked: 20 Times View My Garage	@ Kaizer - You will get them at Vipers.
	() Thanks

31st March 2007, 10:03	#70
shrivz BHPian Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Pune, MH12 Posts: 604 Thanked: 96 Times View My Garage	I have previously posted my opinion on ractive in one thread, dont remember which, so here goes again: I've been using a ractive EV500 polyurathane filter for about a year now. bought it for Rs. 2300/- The car's definitaly improved with respect to bottom - mid range torque. I can compare directly with my dad's baleno altura and my baleno sedan (both have the same G16B engine) Also there's a drop in performance whenever i put back the stock air box when i give the car for servicing. So yes, I'd say Ractive is worth every penny you pay..
	() Thanks

1st April 2007, 00:30	#71
Kaizer Sozay BHPian Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 333 Thanked: 5 Times View My Garage	Poll Mods can we get a poll started here please. Two main parameters FE vs performance of both the filters
	() Thanks

1st April 2007, 02:01	#72
japneet_b BHPian Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: jalandhar Posts: 25 Thanked: 0 Times	t-bhp brothers please help ...i want an air filter for my ikon 1.6 but not available in jalandhar punjab....if i go to delhi which one should i get for my car....and what difference will i see in my cars performance???
	() Thanks

1st April 2007, 02:37	#73
rohan_fonseca BHPian Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Panaji Posts: 984 Thanked: 8 Times View My Garage	Sorry BUSA for the late reply. It wasn't at HPM. My logic in the SS filter heating up was that, since the metal gets hotter than cotton, it would result in heating up the air in the intake pipe. But that said; the air could be passing so quick into the intake that it might not have enough time to absorb the heat.
	() Thanks

1st April 2007, 15:30	#74
elf BANNED Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Bombay Posts: 1,039 Thanked: 13 Times View My Garage	rohan_fonseca: You're right. The air passes through a filter & pipes so fast that it has no time to absorb the heat.
	() Thanks