How did you come to find this out? I have a hard time believing that the shape of the filter makes a significant difference across the board in this regard. It seems more likely that a particular cone filter differed from a particular rectangular filter.
Also not sure how any air box that is constricted by such a small opening could be exemplary at anything. Adequate, maybe.
All my reading has covered from mostly the 2000-'16 range, during which time likely all cone filter were the 'oiled' design. Their filtrate allowed larger contaminants than the best oem pleated box type, - I guess hence the oil film for the dust to stick to. With the proper 'thin' oiling (most everyone including me figured a little is good so dripping wet is better) the cone type wopuld flow 'a little' better than stock, - BUT it took no time for them to clog and end up less flow overall. The fave debate back when was who exactly had the best cone - K&N v. Spectra v. bespoke CAI makers.... It makes me no real matter mind at this point, but I hear tell now of 'non-oiled' dry type cone filters which has to be an improvement. I'll look into them when time for a new one in the seldom driven Imp, but for the cleaner feeling inside my driver's motor I'll stick to a better filtering good quality cartridge type.
One thing could really impress me is if and whether and ever the cone filter makers fess up with their micron size specs. I'm not sure I've ever seen any of them volunteer it themselves although some actual testers have done their own determinations.
And on the little slit in the airbox, I haven't calced the area of that ellipse v. the circular throttle body, but GM likely used the airbox as chokepoint in their ever-hellbent fixation on 'quiet sounding engine' - I guess like expensive cars. The actual tests (including times above) show it makes no difference in performance, but violating the box with a spade bit was fun nonetheless and couldn't hurt either.