K & N Filter --- worth it??

Page 5 of 6  


You do know that these numbers are ridicules, right? I assumed that you used 1000 grams for mathamatical simplicity since 1000 grams is a hell of a lot of dirt, never mind 1500. It would probably be more like 1 gram or .1 gram and in that case 1.5 grams or .15 grams suddenly doesn't seem so bad. If the factory spec for the engine allows for 2.5 or .25, either filter would do.

In all honesty Miles, I know that in the past hat we have gone round and round on some rather idiotic topics but this makes no sense to me. How can you not care how much was blocked? If you don't know the total volume involved, then the amount that gets through is meaningless and even if 1 is 50% more efficient than the other, if they are both within spec then who cares.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

This statement makes no sense. I can easily do oil tests on a car with and without a K&N and see the difference. I do not need to know how much was blocked to be able to compare the effectiveness of the filters. The oil tests will show the difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unless both vehicles were driven to exactly the same places at exactly the same time, that test would reveal nothing. But even still, unless one filter is letting in a damaging amount of dirt, does it really matter if one lets in a little more?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

I've seen first hand how much dirt K&N's let through. And yes, properly maintained. Here in AZ we have very very fine dust. K&N's are horrible for filtering it. They let through alot more than just a little. I've seen it too many times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then in your area a K&N would be a bad choice.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Yep. Because it allows too much dirt through.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

50 % more than an OEM
(BFG)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

look, this isn't even a big deal. but.................
if 100 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops 98 of them and the k&n stops 97. 2 get thru for paper, 3 for k&n.
if 1000 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops 980 of them and the k&n stops 970. 20 get thru for paper, 30 for k&n.
now, i was never a math major but i think that means that the paper filter stops 1% more of the particles. as far as particles getting thru, it is what is left but you can construe that to say that 50% more particles get thru the k&n than the paper iif you want to. but it is only 1% more of the total particles that have tried to get thru.
just thought i'd point that out. not that anyone gives a shit. i mean, this just gets in the middle of good fight i think?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Now paper filters at 2%, lets say there's 100 dirt particles, 98 will be stopped and 2 will pass through the filter. K&N at 3%, with 100 dirt particles, 97 will be stopped and 3 will pass through the filter. Tbone is right, what's the big deal, 98-97=1 or 3-2=1 dale

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale Yonz wrote:

Because I don't care about the dirt that didn't get through. I look at the dirt that did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can't really have one without the other.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

What hurts an engine? Dirt that got through, or dirt that didn't? Forget about this 3 vs 2 thing for just a minute TBone. Lets take a car with an OEM filter through some dusty driving conditions. Lets also take a car through the same area at the same time with a K&N filter. Now lets do an oil test on both. The car with the K&N will have 50% more. The 3 vs. 2 thing you are hung up on means nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Possibly some of the dirt that gets thru but that is completely dependent on the amount and type of dirt the filter comes in contact with.

That is not always true but even if we say that it is, what matters is if it is enough to actually damage the engine and with the extreme efficiency of the paper filter, I doubt that either would allow enough if maintained regularly.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on which spec. you're talking about. For my engine, the manufacturer specs. a filter with 99.5% first-pass efficiency. There's only a couple of aftermarket filters that can meet that spec., and K&N isn't one of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And neither are most paper ones at that unrealistic level.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<sigh>..... I guess I will have to throw my .02 in here as well. First of all, the math isn't fuzzy, it's correct although you may not like the outcome, the numbers ARE correct.
Secondly, I have seen nowhere in print where the K&N filter meets manufacturers specs.... period. In fact, D/C, Cummins and GM all caution against using a K&N type filter because of poor filtration. It seems that D/C, Cummins and the General both think that the 1% is meaningful enough to caution their owners against their use.
Finally, the 99.5% spec Tom alluded to is very much real world. Paper filters ARE that efficient!
For everyone's interest and edification, please follow the below URL for more info. Interestingly, you will see that the K&N efficiency vs a stock AC Delco paper filter is much more that the 1% T-Bone alludes to. Also, look at the loading factor.
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
Although, the test was primarily a direct comparison of the AC Delco vs the K&N, the comparison is valid for virtually all OEM filters.
Now, y'all can argue all you want about "fuzzy" math, 150%... 50%... etc., but I know math and the math Gary used ain't fuzzy. I also know that if you spend your money on a K&N filter, you are wasting it.... but hey.... it's your money and your engine...... think about it!
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One more bit of info... here are some microscopic shots of a K&N vs a paper filter and a paper shop towel... looks like the shop towel was a better filter than the K&N.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic ;f;t0338
Enjoy!
Mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, I would say that a paper towel is probably better than most paper filters as well since it was never designed with air flow in mind and blocks just about everything, including the air itself.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

they aren't mike because the original comparison was how many particles get thru based on how many particles try to get thru. you guys are talking apples and oranges. that is how facts can be said to say whatever you want them to.
anyway, my point is only about the math, not the k&n. the k&n is crap no matter what it does or does not do.

that is the germane point mike. even dc and cummins say to stay away from k&n. there is a reason for that. it has been posted before but the point is, even the folks that make the engine say to avoid k&n. i think it would be a good idea to listen to them.

they are. they do a good job and when they are used up you can throw them away and put a new one in. nothing could be more simple. unless you enjoy cleaning grease off a sponge and putting it in your engine.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry Mike, but while the math may be correct and I never said otherwise, it is still fuzzy for no other reason than it make one filter to be much worse than the other and that is not always true..

Really, please point me to some links. Most of the compalints I see are in regard to them not being oiled properly (over oiled) and the oil messing up sensors.

Funny then how DC, Ford, and Chevy dealerships have sold them as performance upgrades.

Some are but most are not as seen in the link that you provided.

Sorry Mike, but I have to stop you there. The one percent that you accuse me of alluding to was from Gary or did you forget the basis of the calculation that started all of this crap. 3% / 2% = 150% and the more accurate 3% - 2% = 1%.

I think that you may want to do a little research on this data before you present it as absolute fact. I did a little search on dogpile with the search being "Ken at Testand" and got multiple pages of results on all kinds of tests. It seems that Ken test all kinds of things for free and even Alvin is mentioned in many of these as well about all kinds of filters as well as the Ionic breeze. I don't recall that particular device being uised to filter the air for the Duramax but I could be wrong.

Perhaps you could answer a simple question based on these results. If all of the filters have the same surface area, how could a media trapping filter (the K&N) flow less air while allowing more dirt to pass and still plug up faster while containing less dirt than a surface blocking paper one (the AC Delco). How come Ken never gives his last name.

As theguy said, you are arguing apples and oranges. While the K&N may be 50% less efficient than the OEM, it still only lets in 1% more dirt than the OEM by volume and that is the number that really counts. As for peoples choice as to buy it or not, that is up to them. I have one and it has caused my engine no harm in 100,000 miles but I doubt that I will buy another one.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.