K&N filter debate

I agree with you. And in addition, an increased airflow alone is pretty much ineffective unless there is a corresponding decrease in back pressure. You need to go with a low pressure low restriction exhaust system to get the benefit from increased airflow. There's nothing new about this.

Ken

Rick W. wrote:

Here we go it's gonna be a long thread I bet. K&N filters let more air flow because they filter less. Worse than snake oil, they'll actually harm your engine due to poor filtration.

KN filters less so it has less restriction. That makes no difference except at or near wide open throttle and dyno tests have shown only a very small increase in hp with the KN, when they show any increase at all. They seem rather pointless to me.

The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space between the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter medium - both new, and read the gauge...

"There's one born every minute..." - PT Barnum

"Build it and they will come..." - unknown.

After doing this shit for nearly 40 years.... after seeing what happens when we stray from the straight and narrow (though my take doesn't come in "glossy" with a magazine - that values my advertising dollar )... I am immensely surprised that there are those that steadfastly tell me my experience is bogus and the one car they have seen is great.

I base all of my assumptions on "would I want my wife to drive this car and expect it to be dependable". Buy what you want... but don't base the decision on pretty pictures....

Word to the wise... K&N spends a lot of time sidestepping the "micron" issue.

Make several WOT passes using each filter medium - both new, and read the gauge...

Heck Jim, don't think my Explorer has seen WOT more than 2 maybe 3 times. It ain't a race car, don't drive it like one!!!Give me a GOOD air filter that does it's job of removing dirt and dust.

Jack

I see this discussion come up so often, I just created a web page with my canned response - see:

Ed

WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday? Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that has a stock air filter or yet a stock air cleaner. Want max air flow you need a K&N or something similar. Have a cam of 300 or more degrees with .500 or more lift you need a K&N. Also not true about K&N filtration, a properly oiled K&N will filter just as good or better than a stock filter. Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works. OEM filters and air boxes as used on EFI engines of the last 15 years suck. How many of you have taken you ride to a speed shop and tested the stock air box to a K&N cold air intake on the Dyno? If you want MPG don't waste your money on a K&N, need a few extra horses for little money than go for the K&N. Now the oil on the mass air meter, yes clean the oil off my 91 Explorer Mass air with 385,000 miles and it will run better than new, BS, put three quarts of oil on the mass air and be lucky if the engine runs at all.

Nothing is better than good maintenance. Do it often and do it right and your Exploder will live a long life. Remember your Explorer is not a race car but feel confident that if you want a K&N filter it will not harm your engine and it just may give you a smile on your face when you hit the go pedal. Do what makes you feel good and pass on all this BS from shade tree race car shops.

Ron

And yes I have run K&N filters on all my Explorers, 93, 95,98,03 and 05 Lincoln. All had modified exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades.

Rick W. wrote:

Greetings Ron We are not talking about race cars here. My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a K&N filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away from OEM such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades. With that my statement doesn't apply.

Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works. Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us shade tree mechanics.

Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me the study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust with that K&N, nothing more?

Rick

I've seen magazines do it and they get very little improvement. No one is saying that reducing the filtering ability to improve airflow won't give some slight benefit, but on a normal drive around town car the tiny little extra power you MIGHT get at WOT is silly to worry about and the trade off in filtering capability is IMHO a dumb tradeoff.

If you want MPG

Many people have reported problems with oil on their MAF and not just on older vehicles.

Nonsense. About the only thing you be able to notice a difference in is the amount of noise. The small increase in hp you might get at WOT is not going to be noticeable to the driver except in his imagination.

Well gee, I'm sure that KN have oh so much to do with any improvements. The fact is, based on actual tests, the thing that DOES make a difference is opening up the exhaust, it's just about the only thing on your list that is likely to make enough difference to be worth the trouble and cost of doing in and of itself.

Rick:

I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to

427 SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I do. But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that works is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing so what is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter? I have for years seen replies to questions about filters and it took this last one to set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be a problem in sex, with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in a 350 Chevy then you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if you want to impress your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor. Square inches of filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow is the answer.

I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of this BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear head, and my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will not work. Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any thing you can do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has to be good. Why do we have to argue about things others like? Want to vent than vent on the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each other and offer true help not the other way around.

I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000 RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did.

R> Greetings Ron

Dusted engine..... more prevalent in diesels but applies to gas as well....

I've been doing this shit (auto mechanics) for near 40 years.... you will never see an open weave filter on any of my vehicles... not even my toys.

Fitting one of these filters wont kill your engine.... but it opens the door.

YMMV

My first car was a '51 Ford flathead V8. Paid $110 for it in 1965. First thing I did to it as a dumbass 16 year old was take the air filter off and punch holes in the muffler. Don't remember if it was any faster but it sure sounded good. Totaled it one night (Way before Mad Mothers, the cops gave me a ride home joking about how drunk I was) so I don't know how long the engine would've lasted with no filter.

Ron:

Here in lies the problem, I've been thinking about buying a KN filter. But I'm not going to spend $49 if it doesn't really work.

I apologies if you thought that is what I'm doing. For the record, I'm not an auto mechanic. I grew up with it, but am actually a practicing master electrician. I'm trying to teach my 18 year old son not to "fall down" for every arm chair expert, or "seductive marking gimmick", that comes along. A lot of money and time is wasted on well marketed garbage. This filter thing is a great example. For every person that likes KN, there is someone who doesn't. Why? It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the engineering data. I started this thread in hopes of finding someone who HAS THE DATA, you cannot argue with the data, and some have indeed shown links reviewing comparisons, or present a compelling ANALYTICAL argument. I formed an opinion based on almost no data, and was hoping to hear that I'm either right or wrong, but proven so not by someone who "just knows", but by the results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.

Rick

No hard data tonight, sorry. I remember funny statistics somewhere that showed K&N to be virtually as effective at removing dirt as a good paper filter. K&N's website had some actual comparison numbers, I think, but I don't find them there now. Basically, the best paper filter would catch 98% of airborne dirt while K&N caught 97%. That's only a tiny difference of 1% right? No, it's really a 50% difference. Paper passed 2% into the engine, and K&N passed 3%... which is 50% more.

Some of the K&N testimonials are pretty hokey.

"I could immediately hear a HUGE suction of air rushing into the engine like crazy. The whole system sounds strong, and it really made a bigger difference than I thought it would! Amazing what a little bit of extra air can do for an engine." And is rather an interesting admission. I think that auto manufacturers are smart enough to size their filters so that restriction is negligible too. A few more square inches can't be that hard to achieve.

I have read all of the messsages, just did a K&N on my V6 Mustang, 3 MPG and quicker response out of the box! Regular paper filter at Oil Change = $38.00,

50,000 mile K&N saves about $400.00!

Asht>>WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?

Anybody remember the old oil bath filters car makers used before they used paper filters? How is the K&N different from them?

What needs to be remembered is how long those old motors lasted before it was time for a rering or rebuild....

Look at it this way..... the folks that want to sell you an open weave filter will tell you the micron rating of the filter medium doesn't matter....

However, the folks that designed and built the engine say that it does....

Who am I going to believe?

FWIW, we just finished replacing an engine in a 2006 F350. This 6.0 PSD had been fitted with an open weave filter. With 120,000 kms on the engine (less than 75,000 miles), this engine drank a litre of oil every 200 km. Turbocharger fins were severely dusted as were the cylinder walls.... A complete 6.0, installed, runs about $20,000 CA...

I refuse to try to change anyones mind.... however, choosing the filter media we use requires that we have our eyes wide open...

Not that I doubt your sincerity, but that kind of result often happens when people make changes because they drive differently or because they changed something else at the same time. Do you really think that if it was that easy to REALLY make every v 6 mustang get better gas mileage and more power with no significant downside that ford would not put them on every one they sell?? They spent millions developing the 5w20 oil for a 0.1mpg increase in overall fuel mileage. and as another data point, it's not that ford won't use such a filter, they do use it I have been told on some of the specialty vehicles. So they know what it's value is and whether it would make sense system wide.