K&N air filters, do they really work?

I don't quite follow your logic on this one...

The air in your environment didn't get any cleaner. The engine didn't start using less air per mile. So if a paper filter is nasty in 10k miles and your K&N is still clean after 50k miles exactly where do you think all the rest of the dirt went?

If you had said that the paper filter still looked good at 10k miles but the K&N was so clogged at 5k that it had to be cleaned and reoiled I might be impressed and looking to get one.

Steve B.

Now that the guy has been bashed enough... the design of the K&N vs. the paper makes it such that the K&N doesn't look as dirty. The dirt is trapped inside the filter while with the paper it is trapped right on the surface. The K&N filter is darker in color while the paper filter is white. The K&N will look cleaner without a closer examination even if it is trapping the same amount of dirt. This isn't a defense of the K&N, just that the difference in filtering method and construction will cause it to appear different.

If we were doing a 10k to 10k comparison I could accept this explanation and move on. I know what my paper filters look like new and I know what they look like at 10k miles. I can't imagine what one would look like at 50k miles nor can I understand how a K&N can hold all that dirt and not even appear dirty. I'm not bashing you or the OP. I hear this pitch often from the people with K&N filters and I just don't follow the logic.

Steve B.

I wasn't defending K&N. I've posted a number of times I long ago removed the K&N and went back to motorcraft paper filters. For the time I had it in there, the K&N I had was about as dirty as a paper filter would be, it just meant looking at the filter closer.

And he's obviously just going over the top with the 50K remark.

I like to keep it clean too, Mike. Saw a Two Guys segment the other day where they installed a cold air induction on a truck with an oil wetted reusable filter element AND a low pressue muffler.

On the dyno, they found 12 new horsepower. Good? Maybe. Maybe not.

There are trade-offs in everything like this.

I am not a K&N fan, personally.

We used to flip the air filter covers upside down to get the same kind of effect and sound. That made a 2BBL sound like a 4BBL and gave a perceived increase. Add a larger flow muffler and that 10% is likely realistic while still filtering the air...

Going to a filter that just lets more air and at the same time more particles through, (from K+N's site) just don't make good sense to me when just opening up the intake on a stock high particle filter works the same.

Mike

Found this on K&N's website...disturbing. I'll be putting an AC paper filter back on mine. ::

NAPA sells both also (I quoted the NAPA prices). We don't have a Murray's around here, although ironically, one of my best friends last name is Murray and he runs a NAPA store.

Ed

So unless you are driving the cars in different environments when you are using the two types of filters, why isn't the K&N filter nasty also? And if the K&N is not "nasty" where is all the stuff that makes the paper filter "nasty" going when you use the K&N? Maybe into the engine?

Ed

Napa sells napa filters, not motorcraft. I've never seen a napa carry motorcraft anything. Well there was the exception when the napa part was the ford part with the Ford oval and part number ground off, but that was an idle air control valve which isn't motorcraft's realm anyway.

Then again, I've never seen K&N at a napa either.... maybe you have some odd napa stores in your neck of the woods.

My mistake. I didn't realize that you wanted me to compare Motorcraft to K&N. I was doing decent conventional filter to K&N. I was using NAPA because they sell a decent conventional air filter comparable to the Motorcraft filter (Wix manufactured) and also sell K&N filters. Sorry for the mistake. Advance Auto Parts does sell both the Motorcraft air filter ($14.94) and a K&N drop in filter ($59.88) for a

Go to

The only way to tell how dirty the K&N really is, is by washing it. Something that K&N recommend only be done every 50,000 miles (80 Mm). The reason for the "infrequent" washing is supposedly because the buildup of crud makes the filter more effective. So the worst K&N is a _clean_ K&N.

By the time a K&N needs cleaning you have to replace a Fram 3 times, The filter cost me For the Mustang at Pep Boys was 39.99 and I'm not filling up the land fill with paper filters, how about that one, The company is not far from where I live and I like to support local businesses, I also have Gibson cat back on my Jeep and my Mustang, I have not switched to Lucas oil they are in my city also maybe some day. I guarantee you I live in a very dust dirty place and would not switch to a stock filter.

Ford claims you need to replace the air filter every 30,000 miles. K&N claims you have to clean their every 50,000 miles. Of course K&N also admits that their filter works much better as a filter when it is dirty, but then when it is dirty it is just as restrictive as a paper filter.

If the K&N was $39.99 then your Mustang must be a'93 or older model. Rock Auto sells Motorcraft Air Filters for a '93 Mustang GT for $7.80. A Wix is only $6.55 and a Fram only $5.37. A Pro-Tec Air Filter is only $2.73. I'll bet if you did a valid test, the $2.73 Pro-Tec Filter would filter out more dirt than the newly oiled K&N. However, if you just stick with Motorcraft filters, In 150,000 miles you would need to buy 5 Motorcaraft filters. 5 Motorcraft filters would cost you less than the cost of the K&N alone, much less the cost of the K&N plus one recharge kit.

Ed