They are baseless because of the lack of information they provide. The UOA doesnt tell us whether they switched to a cone filter setup or a panel filter, whether or not they had troubles before. Often times the panels have to be sealed to not allow anything in, but often times arent. If they went with a cone filter, we do not know there setup and therefore there can be tons of errors in it.

As with any 'performance' part, there is always a higher risk of engine wear. I'd imagine there would be more wear just because of the way we tend to drive with a good performance intake, than by any amount of contamination discussed here.

I've been running K&N filters in my vehicles for 20 years now.....and have yet to destroy an engine other than a Jeep that threw a rod through a cylinder wall.

Most of us won't even have these cars in our posession when any of this wear would become an issue.

My 2 cents are that if you're going to choose performance, you go for high rates of flow. If you're trying to make your car last, stay stock (OEM) on all components.....with the exception of the 180 stat and trannny cooler, of course.

If you find some 'middle ground' that suits you, more power to you! (literally)

I am pretty sure I read a press release by cummins telling people not to use K&N filters in their motors because they do not meet high enough filtration levels.

Hi

It is possible that one could assign "installation error" to a few..but elevated levels of airborn contamination is too prevalent to ascribe it to mere user error.

Many of these people have kept track of the condition of their engines through routine UOA. As such, they are often able to document changes in Si from acceptable, single digit figures with a paper element, to double digit levels with the K&N.

By its very nature, these performance filters, inorder to obtain high flow..must sacrifice filtration.

As i've said before...if out in out performance is the goal, and the user is willing to overlook the filtration aspects and all that it pertains to, than by all means use the cones.

FWIW, I recently gutted the airbox, both r and f, and made the inlet orifice about twice its oem size. Coupled with the Baldwin..what a difference. I wasnt able to do gas mileage today due to the weather and such..but throttle response is very, very nice.

If the issue of elevated silicon showing up in these UOAs could be shown to be resolved...I'd sure love a CAI.

Say Will, how is the exhaust routed on your SSEi ? Is it a true dual, and if so, would it be feasible for the SSEi exhaust to be installed on a N/A LSS ? They are sister cars..so should be a direct fit shouldn't it?

However, to satisfy my own curiosity, I will post a thread where people can state what they are using during the "test period" for the UOA.

I saw that also, about the Cummings statement about K&N. I posted it earlier.

"Does DaimlerChrysler authorized the use of high-flow aftermarket air filters such as K&N with my Cummins engine? "

"No. DaimlerChrysler and Cummins do not recommend the use of increased flow air filters such as K&N, because they can allow contaminants into the intake that can ruin an engine (scoring the sides of the pistons, etc.) "

"(Copied off the www.cummins.com customer assistance FAQ)"

The SSEi exhaust is not true dual. True dual exhaust would rob too much backpressure for lost torque. The SSEi exhaust is identical to that of the NA SSE, and therefore will swap to any existing H body, whether NA or SC with a similar L27, L36, or L67 (series 1 or 2) engine. HOWEVER....the newer (00 and up) are slightly different from what I've heard.

This is a comparison for H bodies ONLY. I know the Buick LeSabre exhuast is identical to the restricted flow of the SE.....and as such it would benefit from the 'split Y' exhaust we have.

Hi

Will, would it make sense to get the SSEi muffler, "Y" pipe, and some tips for my LSS ?

Also, how could I get around my bumper not having the proper cutouts like the SSEi ' * ?

I would like to pick up a little more performance..plus the dual tips looks great.

I'd be curious to see what you have right now. What diameter is the tubing? 95bonnevilleSESC has the true sleeper. SC from the factory, hidden exhaust tips.

Some of it depends on how low your rear bumper cover or lower skirt is, but I don't think there'* a need to cut anything to make it work. Can you snap a pic underneath and send it to me? With the pipe diameter BEFORE the muffler?

Hi

Thanks for the reply. My work schedule for Weds and Thurs looks terrible..so doubt I'll have the opportunity, looks like Friday before I get a pic.

Since my car is n/a, I was thinking I'd have to get a bumper cover for a SC'd LSS which I suppose, would have the twin cutouts. The single that I currently have..has a small cut on the rt side. Looks lke 2.25 pipe, eyeballing it tonight... BTW, would a slight , downward slope to the "Y" pipes..clear the bumper..wth out looking stupid?

I was thinking that a "semi" performance muffler and the "Y" pipes for a SSEi would allow for some nice tips. I am looking for a muffler that would allow for better flow...but not so much noise.

I like the growl that my parent'* old 1990 Bonny had. It was a small, deep growl on take off that even my mom didnt notice....but we all thought was "cool". I was told that in those years...GM made a small "drainage" hole..and that accounted for the acceleration tone on take off.

In short..no "fart ish"..or rumble.

Hi

Will, after a trip to my local Pontiac-Oldsmobile dealer, it seems that Olds, for some completely unknown reason, used the same single exhaust for both engines. This means no pre-fabed bumper covers can be had.

I have two options , as I see them.
1. Get a body shop to cut a small "port" for the two tips

2. I could have a muffler shop make the "Y" pipes seek a slighly downward direction inorder that the tips clear the cover.

Since both cars are "H" bodies, I can just shop for the hardware as if it was a SSEi

I think Tim'* has the slight downward turn....Tim?