The article describes the tests using a 2004 "bone-stock" Dodge Ram with a 5.9 liter Cummins engine. You probably know more about this setup than I do, because I don't know a thing. But the tests seemed to be well designed, even if the results did not turn out the way they thought they would.
Can anyone offer proof that K&N is inferior?
- Thread starter gulledge
- Start date
- Status
The article describes the tests using a 2004 "bone-stock" Dodge Ram with a 5.9 liter Cummins engine. You probably know more about this setup than I do, because I don't know a thing. But the tests seemed to be well designed, even if the results did not turn out the way they thought they would.
Where is that close-up photo showing the spaces between the cotton fibers on a K$N? It was convincing enough for me.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...;gonew=1#UNREAD
I would infer from this thread, Terry does not think much of them. I'm sure he has seen a few UOAs.
I would infer from this thread, Terry does not think much of them. I'm sure he has seen a few UOAs.
If you search, there's more than enough evidence out there to at least question the efficacy of the cotton gauze filter (made by others besides K&N). I'm not scared to run them on the street in most applications- when I need the power and am running in a relatively clean environment- but not on an off-road rig. Do what I did. Put a smear of heavy grease in the airflow of the intake. Somewhere that might be a lower pressure area where any dirt might drop out of the airflow. Make sure your filter is sealed in its housing well and run for a few thousand miles. If you find dirt, as I did on two 4x4 vehicles that saw a lot of trail time, then you have your answer. I found a lot of fine grit in the grease.
A potential power increase is undeniably there, but unless your engine is overly restricted airflow-wise from the factory (face it- most newer rigs aren't) you won't see any (or anything noticable on the butt-dyno) changes in normal driving... except perhaps more noise (which tends to fool you into thinking you are going faster). If the engine is getting enough air, it has enough air. You only gain power if there is a restriction in the particular rpm range you are testing. The dyno tests shown in advertising almost always reflect power at the high end where most of us seldom are. Sometimes the tuned intakes that come with the cold air boxes can improve performance in the lower revs, but not always and only in tiny increments. Depends on the system and how good the new system is to what it replaced. This last is a caveat to all perfomance improvements.
With a modified engine, of course, where the airflow needs are increased, you can more easily outstrip the stock intake system. This is where a high flow air filter or intake becomes necessary... not so much to GAIN power as to NOT LOSE it through airflow restriction.
The cotton gauze filter had it's day and was competative in the '60-80s when the factory paper filters were very restrictive, especially in a dirty environment where they quickly plugged up. Since then, air filter manufacturers have made great technology leaps and improved both airflow and dirt capacity, as well as filtering efficiency in the style of fitler used in OE rigs. What improvements have we seen in the cotton gauze filter? It's pretty much that same as it was back in the '70s. Bottom line, it's old tech. It still works for many applications, but a search of all the available technology will yield many alternatives. Some would say better alternatives.
PS- Any relation to a John Gulledge that used to live in Poquoson, VA?
A potential power increase is undeniably there, but unless your engine is overly restricted airflow-wise from the factory (face it- most newer rigs aren't) you won't see any (or anything noticable on the butt-dyno) changes in normal driving... except perhaps more noise (which tends to fool you into thinking you are going faster). If the engine is getting enough air, it has enough air. You only gain power if there is a restriction in the particular rpm range you are testing. The dyno tests shown in advertising almost always reflect power at the high end where most of us seldom are. Sometimes the tuned intakes that come with the cold air boxes can improve performance in the lower revs, but not always and only in tiny increments. Depends on the system and how good the new system is to what it replaced. This last is a caveat to all perfomance improvements.
With a modified engine, of course, where the airflow needs are increased, you can more easily outstrip the stock intake system. This is where a high flow air filter or intake becomes necessary... not so much to GAIN power as to NOT LOSE it through airflow restriction.
The cotton gauze filter had it's day and was competative in the '60-80s when the factory paper filters were very restrictive, especially in a dirty environment where they quickly plugged up. Since then, air filter manufacturers have made great technology leaps and improved both airflow and dirt capacity, as well as filtering efficiency in the style of fitler used in OE rigs. What improvements have we seen in the cotton gauze filter? It's pretty much that same as it was back in the '70s. Bottom line, it's old tech. It still works for many applications, but a search of all the available technology will yield many alternatives. Some would say better alternatives.
PS- Any relation to a John Gulledge that used to live in Poquoson, VA?
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/showthread.php?t=306584
Here is a series of posts on K&N on Porsche 911 application. My read is negative for street.
Here is a series of posts on K&N on Porsche 911 application. My read is negative for street.
Plenty of evidence in that thread from the Porche club you posted to indicate what me and many others have been saying all along. The anti-K&N hysteria can easily be attributed to idiots who don't know what they're doing:
"Even though I cleaned it repeatedly, it was always dirty"
"The K&N had about 1000 miles on it before I replaced it with a paper filter"
"I noticed a 1 point drop in gas mileage immediately after changing out the air filter from the K&N to the paper filter."
The whole thread is mostly these guys swapping stories about what they've heard or theorized. Bunch of B$.
The last page and a half was devoted to reviling in the sound achieved by various drilling and other modifications to the airbox.
Nope, not buyin' it.
Oh and BTW, I'm also still not buyin' the Seattle test case. No way in Heck (gotta be careful now, I'm close to getting banned here) that guy had enough time on a properly oiled K&N to even get it started, much less fairly evaluate it over the long term. His results are exactly what I would expect, under the circumstances.
"Even though I cleaned it repeatedly, it was always dirty"
"The K&N had about 1000 miles on it before I replaced it with a paper filter"
"I noticed a 1 point drop in gas mileage immediately after changing out the air filter from the K&N to the paper filter."
The whole thread is mostly these guys swapping stories about what they've heard or theorized. Bunch of B$.
The last page and a half was devoted to reviling in the sound achieved by various drilling and other modifications to the airbox.
Nope, not buyin' it.
Oh and BTW, I'm also still not buyin' the Seattle test case. No way in Heck (gotta be careful now, I'm close to getting banned here) that guy had enough time on a properly oiled K&N to even get it started, much less fairly evaluate it over the long term. His results are exactly what I would expect, under the circumstances.
Actually your post seems to indicate that you won't believe anything that doesn't support your view. Just a observation and not meant as a put down or anything.
Im sure anyone can believe the dust that wipes up on your fingers when you run two fingers in the intake path behind a K and N filter, just hold your K and N to direct sunlight and imagine how much dust from the home vacuum cleaner would pass through your K and N filter?
Does this turbo intake look dusty to you?
http://66.17.171.114/PhotoAlbum/Cars/Pics/CTD_43.jpg
It is immaculately clean in there - white glove clean, actually.
65cuda: Yeah you're right about that - don't believe much in the way of B$.
http://66.17.171.114/PhotoAlbum/Cars/Pics/CTD_43.jpg
It is immaculately clean in there - white glove clean, actually.
65cuda: Yeah you're right about that - don't believe much in the way of B$.
What kind of proof do you want??? In off road racing, K&Ns are used frequently (with outerwraps to help). The engine is disassembled after every race so wear doesn't matter for a 250-1000 mile race. Upon dissasembly the intake manifolds are covered with grit. Grit that went through the K&N. I know this won't qualify as "proof" but I would never use a K&N type filter on any of my cars that are on my dime! EVER!
Sooty and A-Todd are correct.
I was at AA last night grabbing some 2-for-1 PP and was going through the air filters in the book. Took a look at a K&N for my car, scrutinized it through the ceiling lights. Many, many holes in the media, gaps in the weave, whatever, no tears, just dots of open passage throughout the media. Like starlight on a moonless night. These things are porous. Checked a couple of others of the same panel-design as mine, they were exactly the same.
If someone actually puts one of these on a street car that they intend to keep, they should be prepared for some pretty high levels of various contaminates hitting the combustion chambers. The thought of going through dusty winds after a salty/sandy week on the roads in the wintertime with one of these filters gives me the willies. I can't believe the oil makes THAT much difference..
I was at AA last night grabbing some 2-for-1 PP and was going through the air filters in the book. Took a look at a K&N for my car, scrutinized it through the ceiling lights. Many, many holes in the media, gaps in the weave, whatever, no tears, just dots of open passage throughout the media. Like starlight on a moonless night. These things are porous. Checked a couple of others of the same panel-design as mine, they were exactly the same.
If someone actually puts one of these on a street car that they intend to keep, they should be prepared for some pretty high levels of various contaminates hitting the combustion chambers. The thought of going through dusty winds after a salty/sandy week on the roads in the wintertime with one of these filters gives me the willies. I can't believe the oil makes THAT much difference..
I can remember during my college days I had a really good marketing professor who actually taught me a lot, at least a lot more than any of my other business classes. One of his favorite illustrations was the "psychological price point" and the way it tied into the story of "The emperor's new clothes."
Start of with an ordinary/mediocre product. Slam some major ad dollars behind it and charge an arm and a leg for it. The beauty of this is the reaction of the consumer of the product. The consumer assumes this must obviously be a superior product as no one would pay X ("X" equaling "ridiculous" for our purposes)amount of money if it didn't work. It is actually possible to get a more satisfied consumer by charging more for the same product, all else being equal. To many, a product has to perform better if you paid more for it to begin with, no matter the actual performance of said product. Consumers will not admit they wasted money on an inferior/mediocre product because that would damage their self esteem. The more the consumer spends on said product, the greater the denial.
Now, after 15+ years spinning wrenches, 10 as an engine performance tech, it was painfully obvious that, yes, K&Ns do play a part in trashing MAF sensors. Maybe many were over oiled. A lot of the MAF sensors behind K&Ns were also dirty as #@$%!, as well as the rest of the intake tubing. Just too many ways to get it wrong with K&Ns, and I have yet to see any performance gain with a drop in filter vs a clean factory paper unit.
Great post punisher!
Quote:
I laugh when I read posts like this. Please do some research. HINT: Not all fibers are large enough to be seen with the unaided eye.
If I'm not mistaken, it sounds like toocrazy2yoo did do some research. He went and examined K&N filters for himself. There's no need to ridicule his findings because he's not a K&N super fan like you are.
Wouldn't logic say that if you can see more light through an air filter, chances are it's probably not going to filter as well as a filter that looks more dense??? The air filter test image above seems to be proof that those microscopic fibers that can't be seen by the unaided eye that you talk about aren't doing anything but letting more dirt pass through the filter.
In case you missed it:
Excerpt from test:
Oh, and by the way, I've done my research and have first hand experience with K&N panel & cone filters, thanks! All the K&N filters I've had experience with were all the same quality, which wasn't very good. The paper filters that I've used since then have been much better quality.
- Status
