Direct replacement Ramair or Pipercross filter for '89 SC AW11

[Fab4MR2]

Hello:
Can anyone over there tell me where I might find someone who sells the direct replacement Ramair filter for the late model AW11 MR2 SC? Preferably an online store. I have tried searching for them, but have found very little.
Ramair had an online UK store, but it is supposedly down for maintenance. I have also tried Stylingheaven and Ramair direct, but no help so far. I have an email in to Fensport, but they usually never reply. I am interested in the Ramair as it is cleanable and may flow better than the stock filter.

Also, has anyone compared the Pipercross to the Ramair?
Can anyone tell me what the Pipercross is shaped like? Is it like a K&N?

If it is like the K&N I probably would not be interested as the shape of the K&N for that model limits its airflow, because its pleated shape has considerably less surface area than the stock air filter. The stock filter uses circular filtering surfaces, which have far greater surface area and when I have changed back and forth between the stock and K&N, the stock has always been better (the car idles 100-200 rpm higher and revs much more freely from a stop and at the top end).

That is different from the K&N for the early model AW11, as it was the same shape as the stock filter and apparently if the surface areas are the same, then the K&N material flows better.

The best probably would have been the TRD filter, as it was shaped exactly like the oem filter, but used K&N like material. Unfortunately, it has been discontinued for a long time.

Thanks for any info at all.
Dave

[Mk1 Turbo Powered Steve]

I've just had a look at the ramair sight, all seems up and running now.

[Fab4MR2]

I've just had a look at the ramair sight, all seems up and running now.

I think you may be looking at the Ramair manufacturing website (http://ramair-filters.com/). Unfortunately, they don't sell the filters from there. The one that is down for maintenance is the Ramair-store (http://www.ramairfilters.co.uk/store/).
I just looked and they are still down for maintenance, or wahtever.

[Fab4MR2]

I haven't been able to find anyone that either sells the Ramair filter, or is willing to return my emails regarding them.
However, I have managed to find a place (WWW.MERLINMOTORSPORT.CO.UK) that sells, and will ship overseas, the ITG direct replacement filter, which should be fairly similar. I have also been able to find quite a few posts regarding their filters, although mostly about filter/pipe kits, which are a bit different of course.
Just want to try something different to see if there are any filters out there that are equal to, or better than the stock filter for the 87-89 trunk mount unit.
So far the results are thus for 87-89 direct fit air filter replacement:
a) stock filter: interwoven, clothlike material, not cleanable, lots of surface area due to concentric circle design, and easily the best so far;
b) K&N: cleanable, gauze material, far less surface area than stock filter, idles 100-200 rpm slower than stock, and revs slower than stock filter; if surface area was equal to the stock than it would be a different story, as the K&N replacement for the 85-86 AW11 does work better than the stock filter, and both have the same design and surface area;
c) Apexi filter: not cleanable, paper filter, and as bad as the K&N in performance;

[System-G]

Not sure where you are getting your info on K&N from, but tests were done by a british engine tuner (allbeit on a different car) a while back and K&N finished fairly high up the ranks.

Probably the best for performance & filtration.

A lot of other "imitation" K&N type filters will have very poor filtration and claim unrealistic performance figures.

Thicker Foam filters clog up easily and the thinner ones have poor filtration.

K&N have been tried and tested over many, many years and are heavily used in Motorsport. Nowt wrong with them mate

[Fab4MR2]

Not sure where you are getting your info on K&N from, but tests were done by a british engine tuner (allbeit on a different car) a while back and K&N finished fairly high up the ranks.

Probably the best for performance & filtration.

A lot of other "imitation" K&N type filters will have very poor filtration and claim unrealistic performance figures.

Thicker Foam filters clog up easily and the thinner ones have poor filtration.

K&N have been tried and tested over many, many years and are heavily used in Motorsport. Nowt wrong with them mate

I appreciate your concerns regarding my findings, so let me state that this is based upon my own personal direct experience and, is based only and solely upon the '87-89 direct fit replacement filters.
It took me some time to come to the final results, as I had to locate and correct a few air leaks, downstream from the MAF, after an engine rebuild on my ’87 NA, before I could get accurate comparisons. Until then, I had a hard time telling whether or not the K&N was comparable to the stock filter. This probably turned out to be due to the fact that the '87-89 K&N filter, while robbing the system of some air, was being counter balanced by the fact that extra air was leaking in from other spots, and slightly reducing the lean condition, which the air leaks presented.
Once all leaks were identified and corrected there was an easily identifiable and repeatable difference between the filters, and of course the car ran considerably better overall as well.
Now, let me clarify the reasons why the K&N ‘87-89 filter probably underperforms in this scenario and which would probably explain why I have found references to this in the MR2oc.com forum, but unfortunately never explained.
Compare the stock '87-89 oem filter and you will find that it has by far the greatest air surface of the two filters. It uses concentric circular rings, with a filterable surface area on both sides of all rings. This provides the most surface area by far for the size and shape of the particular filters. Someone else can do the calculations, but visual comparison is very evident that this is the case.
The K&N uses a pleated design, which while it attempts to increase surface area by use of its pleats, and angles them from the outside lower edge, in towards the upper support, to increase their length, and thereby their surface area, it cannot in any way come close to the oem design amount of surface area, and that is where it fails in this application.
An additional help, to the oem filter, is that it uses a loosely interwoven cotton gauze type material, which I would assume filters much more freely than paper types that Toyota would otherwise normally use, and it probably is at least very close to, if not better, than the cloth-like material that K&N uses, especially after the K&N is properly oiled.
That being said, if you were to compare the direct replacement oem filter of the '85-86 AW11, against its replacement K&N filter, then you would find that the K&N does outperform it. The oem filter is made of paper, the K&N continues to uses an oiled cloth material, and both are the same exact size, shape, and design. The apparent difference is that the K&N cloth material, even when oiled, can apparently filter more air than a paper filter of the same shape and size.
An additional note, which I would like to add, so that you will know that I have dotted all my i’s and crossed all my t’s, is that I have also tried both the K&N filter for the ’87-89 NA and ’88-89 SC. Yes, they make two different filters, although the difference between them is only slight. Apparently, the NA & SC use ever so slightly different sized/shaped air boxes. At least my Toyota parts team claims they are different and they have two different part numbers (1635 for the NA and 1636 for the SC). The outside dimensions seem identical, so maybe the interior of this piece is slightly different. I did not take them apart, as a hinge on my ’87 air box if faulty and I don’t like messing with it more than needed. Also, if you check K&N you will find that they sell a different filter for each of them. I have not measured the boxes to see what the exact differences are, but from looking at the two K&N filters I assume the SC unit’s clamp on section ( the part that is directly connected to the intake funnel leading to the engine bay) is slightly deeper than the NA unit, as the K&N filter for the SC has an ever so slightly thicker rubber gasket. It is not the part of the gasket that is directly clamped (widest section), when closing the air box, but the part of the gasket directly behind/below that part. It is approximately 2mm thicker than the same area on the K&N NA unit. Otherwise, the two filters are virtually identical and so the amount of filtering would be identical.
Strangely, Toyota sells the same exact filter for both the’87-89 NA & ’88-89 SC. Go figure that! Why they felt the need to alter the air boxes ever so slightly, in that one area, I have no idea. Maybe it improves air flow ever so slightly. And why K&N felt they had to alter their original design, ever so slightly, I have no idea, as the K&N NA filter fits and works just as well in the SC air box.
Not to belabor the issue, but I also have an Apexi ’87-89 specific filter for these and it is made of paper, shaped and designed like the oem unit, and works no better than the K&N. So apparently paper filters, at least the paper Apexi uses, is not as efficient at filtering as cloth materials are.
I have owned all of the items in discussion and have owned an AW11 continuously since they first came out in '85. I had the '85 for about 10 years, an '87 for over 10 years, which I still have, and an '89 SC for almost two years now. I've done plenty of experimentation and haven't normally accepted anyone's conclusions about performance parts unless they have given logical and rather clarified reasons for their findings, and/or I have confirmed them with my own findings.

[System-G]

Cool

[Fab4MR2]

Cool

Thanks. I usually don't elaborate quite as much, because I have a tendency to run on, due to my seeming need for prefect clarification.
As of late last night, I have found another long sought after competitor, in this issue. While cruising the web, for unique MR2 parts, I happened upon somebody who appears to have a new TRD Sports Filter, for the '87-89 MR2. I never thought that I would ever see one of these, as they have been discontinued for ages. Now I know it's probably just the usual overpriced piece of junk, that so many TRD parts eventually became, but I'll have myself a regular AW11 direct fit air filter collection.
Especially, after my ITG filter arrives soon (one I had never heard of until a week ago). Geez, now I suppose I'll have to go out and start buying up one each of every silly after market filter there is, like Fram, etc. And then start work on my ark!

[Tiny]

Please keep us informed about how the ITG performs. I have had ITG filters on everything from a Mini to a R1 engined kit car and they have always out performed the OEM items.

Could you post up a picture of the filter when you get it too.

[Fab4MR2]

Please keep us informed about how the ITG performs. I have had ITG filters on everything from a Mini to a R1 engined kit car and they have always out performed the OEM items.

Could you post up a picture of the filter when you get it too.

I'll definitely post my results for the ITG and I'll comment on the TRD unit as well, mostly just for laughs.

Here is what I think, is a picture of one, on the Merlin Motorsport web site. http://www.merlinmotorsport.co.uk/p8500 ... _info.html
With the odd listing they used for it, I had to cross reference the part number against the Supra MKIII, which uses the same filter. It's odd, in that it looks like it may have filter material right up against the screen, which would be right next to the air box outlet. A bit different from anyone else's design. As it appears to have the usual sidewall height, I'm curious as to whether or not there is also filter material at the top of the filter, which would mean that the sidewalls would probably also be used for filtering, and at least add as much filtering surface area to the design as is possible (area farthest from the air box outlet).
Even so, it certainly doesn't look like it will have nearly the surface area of the stock filter, so I would hope the foam material itself passes a lot more air per square inch/cm, than the stock material. And if that does turn out to be the case, then we can probably assume that it's not doing nearly the filtering of the others. Therefore, I might relegate it's use to more serious driving, and not every day use, but time will tell.

[Tiny]

Well if you dont get on with it send it my way ive got an Office in NJ so postage will be cheap

Have you tried the Apexi replacements LINK

[Fab4MR2]

Well if you dont get on with it send it my way ive got an Office in NJ so postage will be cheap

Have you tried the Apexi replacements LINK

If it doesn't work out, it will probably become part of a weird air filter collection I have going.

I mentioned the Apexi, you linked, in my Dec. 2nd post up above.
c) Apexi filter: not cleanable, paper filter, and as bad as the K&N in performance;

Unfortunately, they use a cheap paper mesh type material that does not pass air anywhere near as well as the stock unit, and to make matters worse, they do not even use plastic reinforcements to help keep the circular shaped material from collapsing in on the other concentric filter rings, as shown in your link. Now that is really cheap, as everyone else who uses that design does use reinforcements, even TRD.

I would like to correct a point or two, regarding the TRD filter, that I made earlier. For some reason, some time ago, I had come to the conclusion that the TRD filter was made of a cloth-like material, much like K&N. And that it used a screen covering and was cleanable, like the K&N. This is unfortunately not true, as the picture of it, on the ebay site where I have purchased one, ended up showing. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 0111196620
I cannot recall how I came to that earlier opinion, perhaps a website that had listed it some time back had led me to the wrong conclusion. Or, I might have made the conclusion from seeing that all their replacement panels were of the better design.
Anyway, from the ebay picture, it is obviously not a cleanable design like K&N or others. What it's filter material is made of I have no idea yet. It’s material looks a little more like the stock filter material, than what Apexi uses, and at least they use plastic separators, like the stock unit.
It's a shame that no one has managed to design one like the stock unit, with an equally breathable material, but cleanable as well.

Now I know a lot of hard core guys will scoff at using any sort of direct replacement filters to start with, but I have altered my stock air box and inlet piping so as to take advantage of the much colder air in the trunk, and have also greatly improved the air flow to it as well. That way intake air temps are much lower than with a filter placed in the engine bay.

[Fab4MR2]

Update on both the ITG and TRD direct fit replacement air filters:

1. I got the TRD filter a couple of days ago, and it looks a bit better than I had thought it might. The filter material actually looks a little like the stock material, but possibly a bit denser. It looks as reasonably well made as the stock unit, and is virtually identical to it, except that it uses a dark gray to black dense gauze filtering material, and the circular filter rings are separated by three red plastic supports instead of the gray stock ones.
I'll report on its use in a few days or so.

2. I just got the ITG filter today. I was a bit surprised when I saw the package as it was rather slim. Upon taking the box, with the filter in it, out of the package I was even more surprised as to how thin it must be. And then after taking it out of the box, wow! The picture of it, on the Merlin website, is more accurate than I thought. They actually only use one solid piece of foam filtering material (actually a combination of different foam materials bonded together) about 1" thick. That's 1" from the clamping ring, and that's it! There are no separate filtering sidewalls, so to speak, just the 1" thick foam. I suppose air can come in through the very small sides of the filter, as they are open to the air, but that doesn't add a lot of surface area. The foam has had a somewhat sticky oil applied to it, that I would guess helps a lot with filtering out dirt, as they must make the foam rather porous in order for it to pass enough air for its design. The oil is not of a type that is likely to come off and damage any downstream items, such as the MAF, so I wouldn't worry about that. It actually feels more like a somewhat sticky grease than oil, but oil is how ITG describes it.
Performing the arm swinging air flow test (hold filter by edge and swing arm quickly from side to side), very scientific , produces almost no air resistance what so ever, so there is hope.
ITG claims they will outperform and outlast the average stock filter by about 40% and that if needed, lint free cloth cleaning (of the outer surface), or occasional vacuum cleaning, while gently working the surface of the filter with the vacuum nozzle, is all that is ever needed. We'll see!
I'll report on its performance use in a few days as well.

Oh yeah, Merlin shipped it by air. It got to New York in 1 day, and then took seven days to go cross country!

Geez, the stuff I blow money on!

[Firestick]

Have you managed to give the new filter a try yet???

I'm thinking of getting a replacement sports filter rather than an induction kit also so have been reading with interest. Or is an induction kit worth the extra expense and hassle?

Also is there a problem in drilling some holes in the air box to free things up a bit?

It's a bit Heath Robinson but it worked well on an Alfa Boxer engine I once had.

[Fab4MR2]

Have you managed to give the new filter a try yet???

I'm thinking of getting a replacement sports filter rather than an induction kit also so have been reading with interest. Or is an induction kit worth the extra expense and hassle?

Also is there a problem in drilling some holes in the air box to free things up a bit?

It's a bit Heath Robinson but it worked well on an Alfa Boxer engine I once had.

As to whether or not to go with a direct fit, or an induction kit, I would generally choose the direct fit, as long as modifications are made to the intake assembly. It sounds like you might have tried something similar, to what I have done, on your Alpha.
I did a few things to mine, such as, a) I drilled several large holes in the incoming intake pipe assembly, on the passenger side (USA), b) removed the connecting air pipe from behind the tail light panel, and c) cut away a large section of the rear of the air box itself.
a) Drilling holes in the incoming air pipe and b) removing the connecting pipe allows a lot of fresh air to travel more directly from one side of the trunk to the other and removes any restriction that the stock assembly had created. The trunk has to be incredibly stuffed/loaded before there appears to be any hindrance in airflow. A couple of notes on this though, make sure to drill any holes, or slots, in the incoming air pipe, on its upper side. This will allow any water, which should make its way into the pipe, to continue downstream to the water drain that is located in the bottom side of this pipe assembly, just behind and to the rear of the radio antenna. Also, the fact that this portion this portion of the pipe assembly has a drain, is why it should be left in place. When altering the air intake on my SC, I'll just be cutting a large slot on top of this air pipe assembly instead of holes. I must not have had my Dremel tool when I did this before.
Also, reattaching the trunk side plastic panels will have a detrimental effect on air flow. I have left them off my '87, but want to customize the ones in my '89 SC by punching a nice series of evenly spaced holes in the upper portions of both of them. That way they can be refit, still look nice, and not hinder air flow.
Lastly, c) cut away as much of the rear of the actual airbox containing the air filter as you feel comfortable with. On my '87 I have cut away enough so that much of the sides of the stock filter are exposed, but that was probably overkill. I would imagine that only partially cutting away the side of the airbox that faces that side of the trunk should be adequate. Remember that you must leave the portions of the that side of the air box, which allow it to be bolted and held in place sufficiently.
Performing these mods has made the '87 NA run considerably better. It has also made the sound of the intake much more noticeable, even with the filter still in the trunk. You are also virtually guaranteed to have cooler air being fed to the engine in this case, although it might not look as cool. And it should also stay clean a lot longer than an induction unit.
A very important thing to consider when choosing between this and an induction kit, is just how much surface area the filter for an induction kit will actually have in comparison to a stock or other drop in filter. Most induction filters are conical shaped, like the K&N drop in. Unfortunately, they may not match up to the stock, or similar drop in filters, because of this. Overall, their filter material may pass air as well, or better than most stock filter materials, but they need to have at least very close to or equal to the same surface area as the stock units in order to take advantage of this. The K&N drop in unit does not have nearly the same surface area as the stock filter and therefore suffers. The ITG may overcome this issue, simply because its foam is so porous and that is probably why they use a sticky oil/grease material to coat it and therefore collect some of that dirt.
Many people unfortunately, base a lot of their intake decisions on intake noise nowadays, which is a hugely serious mistake. The main one being that a filter, which restricts air may well make the loudest, coolest sound because it is literally starving the engine for air and that great sucking sound is what can create the noise. The K&N drop in, for the '87-89 falls into that category.

[Firestick]

Great reply thanks!

And backing up my theory that tailoring the current assembly with the addition of a performance filter to replace the OE piece is of most benefit.


Have found a good price for both the Apexi and Ramair foam filters, hence my original question on how the Ramair performs against the Apexi.

If you can post back on that when you have a view that would be great.

[Fab4MR2]

And backing up my theory that tailoring the current assembly with the addition of a performance filter to replace the OE piece is of most benefit.

Have found a good price for both the Apexi and Ramair foam filters, hence my original question on how the Ramair performs against the Apexi.

If you can post back on that when you have a view that would be great.

Do not even bother with the Apexi. As I have stated previously, their drop in filter falls into the bottom of the direct fit replacement filters. It uses the stock design (concentric circular filter rings), which is a good thing, but is made of a cheap paper material that does not pass air very well. It is possibly worse than the K&N.
So far the stock filter has actually performed the best, but I'll check on the ITG and report back.

[mister2mk1]

OMG... What a thread!

I mean from a lengh point of view.....

Whilst there is a huge amount of great detail here and obviously a lot of time and effort spent... I'll stick with my K&N!! Huge difference and response when fitted to my car over stock..............

I'm happy at that...

debate over for me!!!

Just a personal opinion of course!

[Fab4MR2]

As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

[Firestick]

Any news on the ITG Fab4?