TheLion, thanks for the in depth information, its great education for everyone.
I've been a long time K&N user, mainly for the fact that they are reusable, and since I, like you, are an engineer (mechanical) and auto enthusiast, I dont mind cleaning my K&N more often. I have had K&Ns in cars over 200,000 miles with no issues related to wear and more dirt intrusion into the combustion chamber, but I havent done scientific studies either. So Im not trying to disprove what you mentioned, just giving another perspective. Sometimes I just like the slight bump in sound on some engines using a K&N, as one reason paper filters are used if for their sound absorbing capabilities, as OE's try to control sound as well with intakes, not just performance and durability.
Its all a game of trade-offs and how you elect to balance them.
As far as the additional performance I think some here are looking for (cant speak for everyone of course), with their CX-9's, is back to the trade-offs. Some arent suggesting to wring out the 2.5T for the most power you can get, at the expense of lasting only 30K before falling apart, but to shift the priorities. For example, if your like me, used to 14 MPG with my Cayenne Turbo, giving up some MPG's on the wifes CX9 wont be a shock, if I could get a little better mid to top end power. Thats likely what you got with your Ford tune, they worked within reason of the vehicle system, giving up something, but getting a little bit more elsewhere, or negating a top priority they felt the majority of customers want, for another like more performance. And thats why they can back it, its not extreme and within the design space. Heck, some people only keep a car for 20,000 miles, and could care less about durability, but want a little more performance......to each their own.
And at the end of the day, maybe there is nothing left on the table with the 2.5T, maybe Mazda already did all they could and elevated performance in all areas, or had to greatly limit something in another area that prevents any additional gains or even re-balancing of trade-offs, and thats fine, but I think its an unknown to anyone outside of Mazda.
I do agree, you cant just have anyone do this type of programming, and it needs some driveability, durability, etc. backing before Im jumping on the band wagon. That again, is something Ford has the resources to do, or in my opinion, already did when they developed the 2.3 turbo, they just released something different to the market for different reasons, based on different priorities, but knew they could come back to it if customers wanted some more power over another attribute.
I've been a long time K&N user, mainly for the fact that they are reusable, and since I, like you, are an engineer (mechanical) and auto enthusiast, I dont mind cleaning my K&N more often. I have had K&Ns in cars over 200,000 miles with no issues related to wear and more dirt intrusion into the combustion chamber, but I havent done scientific studies either. So Im not trying to disprove what you mentioned, just giving another perspective. Sometimes I just like the slight bump in sound on some engines using a K&N, as one reason paper filters are used if for their sound absorbing capabilities, as OE's try to control sound as well with intakes, not just performance and durability.
Its all a game of trade-offs and how you elect to balance them.
As far as the additional performance I think some here are looking for (cant speak for everyone of course), with their CX-9's, is back to the trade-offs. Some arent suggesting to wring out the 2.5T for the most power you can get, at the expense of lasting only 30K before falling apart, but to shift the priorities. For example, if your like me, used to 14 MPG with my Cayenne Turbo, giving up some MPG's on the wifes CX9 wont be a shock, if I could get a little better mid to top end power. Thats likely what you got with your Ford tune, they worked within reason of the vehicle system, giving up something, but getting a little bit more elsewhere, or negating a top priority they felt the majority of customers want, for another like more performance. And thats why they can back it, its not extreme and within the design space. Heck, some people only keep a car for 20,000 miles, and could care less about durability, but want a little more performance......to each their own.
And at the end of the day, maybe there is nothing left on the table with the 2.5T, maybe Mazda already did all they could and elevated performance in all areas, or had to greatly limit something in another area that prevents any additional gains or even re-balancing of trade-offs, and thats fine, but I think its an unknown to anyone outside of Mazda.
I do agree, you cant just have anyone do this type of programming, and it needs some driveability, durability, etc. backing before Im jumping on the band wagon. That again, is something Ford has the resources to do, or in my opinion, already did when they developed the 2.3 turbo, they just released something different to the market for different reasons, based on different priorities, but knew they could come back to it if customers wanted some more power over another attribute.