Fitting K&N + other bits to a Merc 300TE

bye bye nice merc... bill bodger wants to give you 3-spoke alloy wheels!

It might do if you keep it immaculate and as low mileage for it's age as possible, and not customised.

Why, don't you think if they had any benefit Merc would fit them (or something similar) from new ?...

Yes, change the oil for that (and when) advised by Merc, again, don't you think Merc would advise the use of such products is they made the engine life or perform better ?

Talk to someone who knows how to up-rate these cars / engines.

No. Even Mercedes cars are built to a price and for ease of servicing. K&N filters are designed to be cleaned but it's cheaper for a mechanic to fit a new one and more profitable for the garage to charge their % on the new filter as well. By fitting a new filter, the possibility of a mechanic not cleaning or oiling the filter is eliminated. "Best" is rarely the case when automotive design is concerned.

Regular oil changes are essential. Better lubrication will always improve the situation. An extreme case is that vintage cars were recomended to run on monograde oils because that was the only oil available. Modern oils perform much better in these engines. The addition of Slick 50 to a modern high quality oil can only improve the lubrication. How much improvement is debatable.

Good advice. It all depends upon how far you want to go and what sacrifices and costs you are prepared to incur. The other consideration is what (if any) parts are available for this engine. The best start point is to make what you have got as good as possible. Start with a thorough service and look for anything which may restrict the breathing of the engine. Many designers are besotted with noise elimination to the point where they strangle an engine to save a few dB of sound. There are also "underbonnet designers" who try to make the engine bay look good. Again, they do not always aid engine efficiency. Good luck

John

Why don't you tell us.

Got any facts or data to support this?

Because I'm asking you. You are the one saying that K&N filters work better than the filter designed for the car, without any proof other than overused marketing hype !

Were is the independent test data that proves the K&N sales banter ?..

Getting fined 10 million dollars for making false and unsubstantiated claims in their advertising isn't exactly encouraging.

No, you're not asking me about filters. You are being insulting. However: Try a web search for "K&N Tests". Admittedly some tests are rubish but some are well conducted and documented. David Vizard has conducted many tests on K&N filters. This has involved flow benches and dynomometers. His results are in his books and articles, again these are well conducted independant tests. What I haven't seen on the web but I know DV has done is to compare flow rates for used filters. The flow capability of standard filters drops off much more quickly than K&N filters in use. I have personally run engines on a rolling road and seen power improvements when substuting a K&N filter for a standard one. But I'm only a sheep after all.

"Willy Eckerslyke" wrote in message news:bf605v$beq66$ snipped-for-privacy@ID-139649.news.uni-berlin.de...

Thanks for this link. I wasn't aware of it. Thank you also for not being insulting. Having read the link, most of it seems to centre on the fact that the claims cannot be substantiated. My reply above says that the addition can only improve the situation. In other words, cannot do any harm. There is no mention of any adverse effects in the ruling. However, I do accept that their claims are overstated. My own experience of Slick 50 is when I added it to a gearbox (Ford Sierra 5 speed), the gearchange improved noticably. I do realise that is a subjective view and cannot be quantified (or repeated now), but it still stands in my mind. On the subject of oil additives in general, I have seen the published results of an independant rolling road test of STP. The result was 3% power increase. The article was in CCC many years ago so please don't ask for exact dates etc. I have also witnessed the rolling wheel bearing jig as demonstrated by Wynns (and others I think). The performance increase of the lubricant is noticable. Now others will say that the test is irrelevant as it only proves unpressurised boundary lubrication properties. That's exactly what is happening at engine start. It is also what happens when you compete in a Mini without a centre oil pickup which I used to do. Castrol are now advertising Magnatec as having enhanced cold start protection. I hope thay can justify that claim. Many ask why oil companies and car manufacturers don't include additives in the oil specs. Perhaps I'm cynical but I believe that all of these products are built to a price and not to the highest design specification available. Therefore they can be improved. Perhaps Slick 50 isn't the best way to go though.

John

The following link has some information that may be of interest:

One quote from the (lengthy) piece is:

"This points out once again the inherent problem with particulate oil additives: They can cause oil starvation. This is particularly true in the area of piston rings, where there is a critical need for adequate oil flow. In practically all of the reports and studies on oil additives, and particularly those involving suspended solids like PTFE, this has been reported as a major area of engine damage."

There's a seemingly healthy market for expensive, "high performance" oils from the oil companies. If these things *really* worked, do you not think that one of the oil companies would have given it a go by now?

A good quality oil, changed at appropriate* intervals is all that you need, IMHO.

Ian

Yes read this

(half way down page)Most oil additives are a complete waste of money nowadays, and can even doharm to some engines. Modern oil's and filters have improved tremendouslysince the likes of Redx and Slick 50 were introduced. Almost as bad a using WD40 as a lubricant