k&n air filter

OMG!!! You've started it now! Let the games begin. :)

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Michael price) wrote in news:10206-432E270E-786 @storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net:

Maybe a couple... but only noticable in the same way as a good wash/wax/detail job.

IOW, all in yer head.

The difference isn't really noticible. And that "extra" HP is at the expense of letting more dirt into your engine and possibly contaminating your MAF with the filter oil. If you'll google a bit, you can find a study comparing amount of particulates allowed to pass in a test of various filters. If I recall correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4 times the amount of particulates through when compared to a stock paper filter.

Cheers,

A giant rip-off. The only way it can add power is if your present air cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this is not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as well as a stock element. I don't have the site handy, but someone did an comprehensive study and found the K&N did not filter as efficiently as a paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement, and I have used these in two different cars.

To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my '89 LX since it had 30,000 miles on the odometer. I now have 156,000 hard driven miles on the car with the last 20,000 using a Kenne Bell supercharger. I still use the same K&N filter I installed at 30,000 miles. There are multitudes of K&N users with my experience. BTW, the car uses no more oil than it did when new.

All this "K&N is crap" stuff is just that, crap. EVERY FILTER lets dirt into the engine. IMO, a K&N filter will do no more harm to an engine than an OEM filter. While a K&N might only make 5 more hp on a basically stock engine, the real dividends come when the car is progressively modified. A car with a blower, head work, cam etc. will see an appreciable gain between an OEM and a K&N filter.

Before anyone starts linking web sites with tests, keep in mind who may have done the tests and their motives. Also, there are many tests that are just plain unscientific and should be ignored. As for me, I have

100,000+ miles of personal experience to base my opinion on. Fact is that many of those that bash K&N products have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXPERIENCE with them and have no idea whether their claims against K&N filter's performance is accurate or not.

My pers> A giant rip-off. The only way it can add power is if your present air

on my bone stock 97 XR7 i took the damn thing off after about 3 months, could not stand the dam whistle. no noticable difference is the feel of the car stock to KN but gas milage did increase from 16 mpg average to 17.5 when i put the stock breather box back in place

I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N bashing", guilty as charged. In there zeal to sell product, they make claims that can not be proven outside of their own "testing." It seems to me the term "Filtercharger" implies that the filter will increase air flow. Also, I wasn't talking about a racing application. Having been in the industry for 20 plus years, attended multiple SEMA shows as a Performance Warehouse Industry buyer, I know all about the product. I bought the line direct when they first started selling filters for automotive applications. My SHO, 1965 GT-350 Shelby and my GS430 Lexus all have them. I stand by my original statement. If your present air filter is restrictive, you may gain power with a K&N, but the filter does not magically add power. Thanks Bill Former NHRA Super Stock Eliminator National Record Holder.

Taking the stock air box out of newer cars isn't always the best choice. Many times the air box, filter and intake tubing is designed to work together for best performance. I still use the stock air filter box on my '89 LX even with all the mods. It works fine with the K&N. My advice it to either just swap the filter or replace the box, filter and tubing with a quality engineered system. The fact you didn't use the stock air box was likely the reason for the mileage drop not the K&N filter. Had you used a K&N filter that fit the stock box the results could have been different.

First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can be cleaned and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I haven't bought a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N has more than paid for itself.

EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque gains for their products. Most times these figures are based on a heavily modified engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On stock Mustangs there are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a K&N filter. Whether it is enough to feel the difference or lower ET's, I doubt it.

BTW, I wasn't pick> I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Mine's another one. Been using it for I don't know how many years and I've got about 145k on the clock. Oiled it once about 4 years ago.

There it is...

I dunno about the filter itself, but the sticker that came with mine added

50hp...at the wheels! Wheeee!

wabbitslayer

01 GT vert

Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman" experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as confectioners sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where you live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one thing that we MUST remember.

Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that the more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter better because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced. The only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area.

There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen any identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at $20,000 a pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media.

You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the other habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look into the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet to know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange reason have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets....

This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that apply to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least.

I have visited this site before and find the test interesting but there are many flaws in it. He doesn't weigh the 2nd filters before or after use or analyze the particulates that are on the medium. All he uses to determine filtering ability is the color of the patch. Since the K&N filter is oiled it is quite possible the particles pick up some oil and have a darker color. Also, the oil might make the sample weigh more if he would have bothered to weigh them.

This test doesn't prove anything regarding engine longevity either. It is possible that the particulate matter is not of sufficient size or quantity to cause cylinder wall scoring or excessive bearing wear. I suspect if K&N filters were too porous, and therefore caused premature engine wear, then they would have been sued into bankruptcy by now.

Same here regarding cleaning and oiling. I bet I've cleaned it less than half a dozen times in 14 years.

As long as you think it added 50 horsepower does it really matter if it didn't? ;)

I would say my experience is typical for most users here in the USA with the exception of some dry dusty areas. If I drove miles of dirt roads every day then I would probably put more thought into the filters I use for both oil and air.

I'm only speaking on the use of K&N filters in passenger cars and light trucks that mostly travel paved roads. When you talk about diesel engines in long haul trucks or mining vehicles etc. I'm sure there are other things to consider for a variety of maintenance concerns.

My "extensive testing" has been repeated by multitudes of others with the same results. IMO, I am far from a limited operating demographic and I'm definitely not suffering from "tunnel vision" as there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that have used K&N filters with absolutely no negative effects on their engines.

They have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets because they perform as advertised. They flow better than OEM filters, they can conceivably last a million miles , they result in more hp as compared to OEM filters and using one will not put your engine at risk appreciably more, if any more, than an OEM filter for the overwhelming majority of passenger cars/light trucks on the road. The biggest problem I had with using the K&N was a result of over oiling the filter. The excess oil would coat the MAF sensor. I cleaned it and then used the recommended amount of oil on the filter and the problem was solved. It was my fault and not an inherent flaw in the filter design.

Well, I put some burden on the user to know that their driving conditions might warrant them to consider alternative filters, oil, etc. If someone thinks the advice they read here can apply to long haul trucks, mining equipment, earth moving equipment etc. is just plain stupid, IMHO. Fact is almost every passenger car/light truck that drives predominately paved roads could use a K&N filter with no side effects or any meaningful reduction of engine longevity. I laugh at these air filter threads because people act like they are going to get

500,000 miles out of their vehicles and if they use a K&N they might only get 480,000 miles. The reality is the overwhelming majority of these cars will have a date with the car crusher before it sees 200,000 miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine.

Your final statement pretty well sums it up, Michael but the "more horsepower" myth will forever perpetuate.

I'm sure that you are aware that the gasoline engine produces far more horsepower than is needed for *most* driving conditions. If, indeed, the K&N offers more power (which would come at extreme high rpm only), adding horsepower at cruise is an exercise in futility. I'm reminded of another thread, a long, long time ago where a nitrous user wanted to add NOs at half throttle for more power..... he thought my suggestion that he press down on the pedal was "odd".

While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the "mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this sort of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a flame arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do the deed.

As ever, this is one subject that the only thing we can agree on is to disagree.

confectioners