K&N air filters, are they any good ?

Look in the warranty guide. It will have a statement sort of like the following:

"Ford Motor Company recommends that you use genuine Ford replacement parts. However, when you are having non-warranty work done on your vehicle, you may choose to use non-Ford parts. If you decide to use non-Ford parts, be sure they are equivalent to Ford parts in performance, quality, and durability."

Naturally K&N "claims" that their filters are equivalent (or better) and that they will therefore not void your warranty. However, if you show up at a Ford dealer with an engine showing internal wear that appears to be related to dirt ingestion, or a MAF sensor coated with oil, chances are Ford will tell you the K&N was at fault and void your warranty on parts related to the air filter (obviously, they can void the warranty on parts unrelated to the intake system because you installed a K&N). You can then go to K&N, and if you somehow manage to jump through all their hoops (read their warranty requirements - what a joke), they will still most likely deny your claim because they'll claim their filter is not at fault, or that you didn't oil it right, or blah, blah, blah. In my opinion only a fool would trust an engine to a K&N filter for everyday use. The benefits are almost non-existent, the risks are real. If you are drag racing at a track, then maybe I could see it - but never for everyday driving.

Ed

So you show up at the dealership with a car that either shosw excessive wear related to dirt ingestion, or a contaminated MAF sensor. The tech says it looks like the K&N is the cause. So, they void the warranty. What do you do? If you decide to fight them in court, who will you use for your expert witness to counteract whoever Ford or the dealership sends?

Ed

Ford can require you to use parts that meet certain specifications. They just can't require you to buy "Ford" parts.

"K&N interprets this law to also prohibit the motor vehicle manufacturer from restricting your use of a particular brand of air filter, oil filter, etc."

While this is true, it does not also mean that you can use any old "filter." If ken's interpretation was true, I could stick a chunk of chicken wire in the filter box and claim that it wouldn't void the warranty. I think the correct interpretation of the law is - "You can use any brand of filter you want as long as it meets or exceeds Ford's performance requirements." Whether or not K&N filters meet Ford performance requirements in debatable.

Since K&N doesn't clearly claim to meet OEM spec's, I'd recommend that they not be used. However, Ford Performance Parts does sell K&N filters and Saleen Mustangs are sold with them installed with the warranty intact. So, if you are patient and willing to fight it out in court, I suppose you could use those facts to claim that Ford has acknowledged that K&N filters are acceptable replacement filters. Might make for an interesting court battle. See

, go to page 154 in The SportCompact Performance Parts section or see . This is a K&N Air Filter, sold byFord for a Ford. It even has a Ford P/N. The catalog notelists it as a "direct replacement part" and there is not anyrestriction noted. I'd say this amounts to an acceptance byFord of K&N Filters, at least for some vehicles. For sure ifyou buy the Ford branded K&N Filter and have it installed atthe dealer, you are virtually assured your warranty will beunaffected.

Personally I will not use a K&N Filter on a street car (whether bought from K&N or Ford). The performance gain will be minimal (if any), the fuel economy gain non-existent, there is a possibility of MAF contamination, and I don't believe they filter as well as a good quality paper filter. The non negligible risk and little possibility for reward make K&N filters a bad decision.

Regards,

Ed White

I believe you are misinterpreting the rules. While Ford can't require you to use a "Ford" filter, they can require you to use a filter that meets Ford's specifications. K&N deliberately tries to obscure this difference.

Regards,

Ed White

================== Just because I dont want to send oily dirt down my intake (which I have personally seen on many, many Crown Vics BTW), pay $50 for, clean and oil ect. , doesnt mean I can't follow simple instructions. If you did a little research on those type of filters, I bet you wouldn't use them either. I've never seen so many nasty, dirty MAF sensors and throttle plates/bores since those K&Ns. ==================

Why are you so adamant about K&N filters? If you don't like them, don't use them. You seem a bit too fervent.

I worked at dealerships most of my working life. Never has there ever been even a question on after market parts. I've seen plenty. K&N filters, fancy multi colored plug wires, super high voltage coils, exhaust headers with after market cat-back exhausts. You name it I have most likely seen it and had to deal with it. I have never seen a engine that had wear as a result of using an air filter. If you look back at history, some of the best filters were oil bath filters. They are messy, but do a superb job of cleaning the air is a dirty environment. The K&N is only a modern derivate of that old oil bath filter. It works extremely well for removing very fine particles from the air. You will not find a wear problem with these filters, you may find a performance problem, usually due to plugging not to "contamination" to the MAF.

Have you ever noticed that in the intake air system you see deposits of sludge and carbon? Many time a oily film? ( this is on a vehicle NOT using a K&N filter system ). It is normal. I'll let you think about it as to why it is normal. If you want to discuss it, that is fine. At that point, "contamination" of the MAF sensor is normal.

Sir, do you have proof, documented and from a trusted laboratory, that the K&N filter is not up to the Ford specifications?

If so please share it.

Sir, show me the proof.

Thanks.

PS: Just so that we are clear, I am willing to be educated here but I will need hard concrete scientific CSI type proof.

Oh I don't know about that. It's on topic and a good discussion.

I just want to see some real hard evidence but no one is offering more than personal opinions )which is what I am doing actually).

A poster mentioned Crown Vics as example. Perhaps the driver is a knuckle dragging unmechnaical minded troglodyte that can't process reasonable instructions no matter how clearly written.

Some folks shouldn't be allowed to pump there own gas.

Thanks Thomas, for finally offering a hands-on experience with this discussion.

I consider the K&N advertising to be misleading. The ads are just barely on the good side of Slick 50 and Splitfire Spark Plugs ads. I am just expressing my opinion. Take it for what it is. I think my opinion is well reasoned. You may not. But at least you heard a different opinion that the K&N advertising copy.

Ed

I unfortunately have, but it was a farm tractor, not a street car. One of the reason I think people don't have problems with K&N filters is the fact that dirt is not a really big problem for cars driven on paved streets. I had a friend who had a Lotus 7 that didn't have air filters at all. It just had wire mess over the intake trumpets of the weber carb on his engine. The engine was still running strong at around 50,000 miles when he sold it. I tend to change my air filters at a shorter interval than recommended by the manufacturers. on my street cars, I rarely see much in the way of contamination. On the other had, the filter from the truck we use when harvesting peanuts will be choked with dust after just one season. If I could afford to ruin the truck, it might be interesting to try out the K&N on it.

I certainly disagree with this statement. I have had to deal with oil bath oil filters on older farm tractors. They were horrid inefficient devices. It was routine to have to rebuild tractor engines in the old days, but not any more. No modern tractor uses an oil bath air filter. Everything today uses high efficiency paper filters. Oil bath filters went away for good reasons.

Again I disagree. At least with an oil bath filter, you had a reservoir of oil that would constantly re-wet the filter media. With a K&N, you have to do it yourself. Oil bath filters trap much of the dirt in the oil reservoir where it is removed from the air stream. K&N doesn't have a reservoir, so all of the dirt remains in the air stream, where it can eventually come dislodged.

I definitely see oily films in intake tracts - but not usually on the MAF wires. Most of the oily mess I see is on the engine side of the throttle plate and is introduced into the system via the PCV return. I don't doubt that there can be some contamination of MAF wires even for vehicles without K&N filters, I just believe the chances of contaminating the MAF wires are greatly increased by the use (or misuse) of a K&N Filter.

K&N used to include formulas on their web page for calculating the proper size K&N filter for a particular application (this was removed in 2002 or so). They were thoughtful enough to include the filter factor for paper filters as well. I ran through the calculations using their formulas and their filter factor for a good paper filter and discovered that the paper filter on my departed Mustang was already three times as large as K&N's formula claimed was necessary. Of course a K&N filter of the same size as the paper filter would have been 3.5 times as big as it needed to be, but I doubt the difference would have been detectable.

Ed

Exactly who would run such a test? If their filters meet OEM requiremnts, don't you think K&N would say so? Do you have any proof that K&N Filters meet the Ford specifications? Even Fram claims to meet OEM specifications. K&N never says that they meet or exceed OEM requirments. Instead they spend a lot of time trying to obscure the issue by talking about the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and trying to imply that this negates the need of meeting OEM specifications, which it doesn't.

On the otherhand, as I pointed out in another post, Ford Performance Parts actually sells K&N Filters under a Ford Part Number. This fact seems to me to be an oblique endorsement of K&N filters.

Ed

What other things have changed in farm tractors in the intervening years??? Just about everything.

In central Africa, where it is dusty at least 9 months of the year, oil bath filters were installed as a solution to the dust problem. If serviced regularly they ARE a very efficient filter.

But they MUST be serviced.

On your peanut truck you need a cyclonic pre-cleaner - Evans is/was one common manufacturer IIRC. Donaldson was another. This spins the heavy crap out of the airstream before hitting the filter. Almost all Combines and lots of other farm equipment uses them

I worked for a White/Cockshutt farm equipment dealer as well as for a Fiat Allis industrial equipment dealer over the years and the big reason oil bath filters were replaced with paper element/cyclonic combinations was ease of servicing. Next was manufacturing cost.

The oil bath filter put the cost burden on the manufacturer, the dry filter puts the cost burden (replacement) on the consumer.

And the K&N holds a lot more dirt before it plugs than a paper filter

The sorce of the contamination of the MAF sensor is crankcase vapours from the PCV system - not the intake air filter efficiency or lack thereof.

In years of experience the type of air filter does not appear to have much if any influence on the "coking" of the MAF sensor. GM, Ford, or Toyota.

Let's just cut to the chase.

ANyone on the list have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE of Ford, or any other manufacturer refusing warranty because of a K&N filter being installed on the vehicle????

If so, lets have it.

Put up or shut up.

Dirt is a very big problem. You can easily tell the approximate location where one operates a vehicle just by the amount of dirt in the filter box. Paved or no paved street. Live near farm country? I have many times. Just the amount of dirt and sand laying on the intake is a clue as to the amount of dirt in the air.

Old technology, using poor oils in a really dirty environment. Not even car engines lasted a long time. Real bad example.

It's cheaper to use a paper filter, very simple. Also the average customer of heavy machinery want to reduce down time for anything including PM. The manufactures are very happy to oblige, it makes sales. If I make a machine that reduces maintenance by 30% over previous models and market it as such you can bet you will get a second look by a customer. If a manufacture does not do this, that manufacturer is no longer competitive.

The particulates stay on the paper because of the oil. Want to find a A/C leak? Find the dirty joint, same principle.

There is better than a chance, it does happen. That oil mist from the PCV can and does make it's way to the filter, which is in front of the MAF sensor. Ford even issued a TSB on the subject some years back.

I never claimed any performance increase with using a K&N filter, only that it does a very good job of cleaning the air and that it will not cause problems. I did alluded to the fact that you have to maintain it or engine performance will suffer.

So your experience is on a tractor? This is an auto group, meant for discussions about autos. Take your hatred for K&N to a tractor group somewhere.

Check out this guys site, very interesting...a good read I think. He did some testing of air filters and K&N was one of them.