Can anyone offer proof that K&N is inferior?
- Thread starter gulledge
- Start date
- Status
My $0.02 for what it's worth:
On my '97 Escort wagon (hey! stop that giggling!) I switched from the stock paper filter to the K&N replacement at about 100,000 miles. At about 190,000 miles I placed an aftermarket air intake system with a K&N cone filter (hey! stop laughing and come back here!). The car suffered irreparable engine damage at 313,000 miles from head failure when valve seat inserts from a rebuilt head trashed all four pistons and cylinders three months ago. From about 100,000 miles I was also using Red Line oil, as I had intended to keep this car on the road for a long while. Unfortunately, heads seem to be a weak point with the Fix-Or-Repair-Daily 2.0 SPI (CVH) engine. Weaselmaster head rebuilders seem to be an even weaker point.
When the rebuilt head was installed earlier in 2006, I saw the condition of the cylinders, and they still had cross-hatching from the factory honing visible after nearly 300,000 miles. Periodically from about 75,000 miles (that is, before I ever installed the first K&N filter), I removed the intake system (stock or aftermarket) at the throttle body to clean the throttle body of oil residue at the plate from the PCV system. This was about every 20,000 miles, or about twice a year based on the usual mileage I would put on the car. When I would check the intake plenum during cleaning, it was always clean of dust and dirt, despite using a K&N filter after the 100,000 mile mark.
Generally I left the filter alone and cleaned it only about every 30,000 miles or so. The K&N cleaner and water were the only chemicals used for cleaning, and I used the aerosol oil. The cleaner and water was used from the inside out, and the filter gauze would come out nearly white. If I used a little too much oil, I wicked it off the filter with paper towels while blowing into the exit as it was sealed against my mouth and chin. Sounds stupid, but it worked well. The original factory MAF sensor failed at about 180,000 miles, but it was probably time for it to go anyway whether or not a K&N filter was installed. When I had the valve cover off to replace the gasket at well past 200,000 miles, everything in that area was clean, obviously from using Red Line, but my point is that there was no evidence of oil contamination from dirt.
With the K&N filter simply replacing the original-style paper filter, I noticed some difference in performance during full acceleration at highway speeds. With the aftermarket intake, that difference was greater. The Escort was no performance vehicle, mind you, but by seat-of-the-pants feel there was a tangible difference when accelerating on the Interstate. There was little difference with mileage. Would I try another K&N? Sure, why not?
I strongly suspect that problems with K&N filters not filtering or performing properly are mostly from failure to seal the filter against its mating surface, overcleaning, and overoiling. Certain vehicle applications are probably not ideal for use of any aftermarket filter, either, because of plenum routing and restrictions from the factory. Also, manufacturers are doing a better job designing intake systems and aren't really missing too many tricks today. Racing Beat has said on its website that in comparison to, say, 20 or 25 years ago, it was able to get an increase of only a few hp with modified intake and exhaust systems on the Mazda RX-8 compared to the factory setups. Years ago, of course, it was possible to unleash quite a bit of power with such aftermarket changes.
The RX-8 results say something, and they probably apply to many newer vehicles. As a result, unfortunately, it appears that the "maintenance-free" intake system with nonreplaceable filter as on the current US-spec Ford Focus is probably going to be the wave of the future as the automakers attempt to ensure that people won't use any aftermarket parts under the hood. K&N is a good outfit and I hope it can adapt.
On my '97 Escort wagon (hey! stop that giggling!) I switched from the stock paper filter to the K&N replacement at about 100,000 miles. At about 190,000 miles I placed an aftermarket air intake system with a K&N cone filter (hey! stop laughing and come back here!). The car suffered irreparable engine damage at 313,000 miles from head failure when valve seat inserts from a rebuilt head trashed all four pistons and cylinders three months ago. From about 100,000 miles I was also using Red Line oil, as I had intended to keep this car on the road for a long while. Unfortunately, heads seem to be a weak point with the Fix-Or-Repair-Daily 2.0 SPI (CVH) engine. Weaselmaster head rebuilders seem to be an even weaker point.
When the rebuilt head was installed earlier in 2006, I saw the condition of the cylinders, and they still had cross-hatching from the factory honing visible after nearly 300,000 miles. Periodically from about 75,000 miles (that is, before I ever installed the first K&N filter), I removed the intake system (stock or aftermarket) at the throttle body to clean the throttle body of oil residue at the plate from the PCV system. This was about every 20,000 miles, or about twice a year based on the usual mileage I would put on the car. When I would check the intake plenum during cleaning, it was always clean of dust and dirt, despite using a K&N filter after the 100,000 mile mark.
Generally I left the filter alone and cleaned it only about every 30,000 miles or so. The K&N cleaner and water were the only chemicals used for cleaning, and I used the aerosol oil. The cleaner and water was used from the inside out, and the filter gauze would come out nearly white. If I used a little too much oil, I wicked it off the filter with paper towels while blowing into the exit as it was sealed against my mouth and chin. Sounds stupid, but it worked well. The original factory MAF sensor failed at about 180,000 miles, but it was probably time for it to go anyway whether or not a K&N filter was installed. When I had the valve cover off to replace the gasket at well past 200,000 miles, everything in that area was clean, obviously from using Red Line, but my point is that there was no evidence of oil contamination from dirt.
With the K&N filter simply replacing the original-style paper filter, I noticed some difference in performance during full acceleration at highway speeds. With the aftermarket intake, that difference was greater. The Escort was no performance vehicle, mind you, but by seat-of-the-pants feel there was a tangible difference when accelerating on the Interstate. There was little difference with mileage. Would I try another K&N? Sure, why not?
I strongly suspect that problems with K&N filters not filtering or performing properly are mostly from failure to seal the filter against its mating surface, overcleaning, and overoiling. Certain vehicle applications are probably not ideal for use of any aftermarket filter, either, because of plenum routing and restrictions from the factory. Also, manufacturers are doing a better job designing intake systems and aren't really missing too many tricks today. Racing Beat has said on its website that in comparison to, say, 20 or 25 years ago, it was able to get an increase of only a few hp with modified intake and exhaust systems on the Mazda RX-8 compared to the factory setups. Years ago, of course, it was possible to unleash quite a bit of power with such aftermarket changes.
The RX-8 results say something, and they probably apply to many newer vehicles. As a result, unfortunately, it appears that the "maintenance-free" intake system with nonreplaceable filter as on the current US-spec Ford Focus is probably going to be the wave of the future as the automakers attempt to ensure that people won't use any aftermarket parts under the hood. K&N is a good outfit and I hope it can adapt.
I didn't finish the thread, but wanted to mention two things. One is my last K&N fit really badly. Too stiff and wrong shape. Another thing worth mentioning is wraping them with pantyhose makes them stay cleaner and makes them easier to clean. Digging stuff out of the pleats is a pitr. Pantyhose pre-filter also catches excess oil that could foul the MAF.
grr, i took my k&n cone filter off today and i noticed on the inside of the filter, there were some loose pieces of wire mesh on the edge, where the media is molded into the rubber housing. I hope none of these fell into the engine that i don't know about. Starting to hate these things.
You guys are making me second guess the K&N's in both my vehicles. Arrgh!
Here's my K&N experience:
I used to drive a 3.0L Plymouth Acclaim...while it was a total looking grandpa car (or, almost total), the 3.0L was one nice engine.
Each time I'd change the oil, I'd check the air filter and for whatever reason, wipe around were the butterfly valve was on the intake.
With the stock paper Fram filter, it was always clean.
I think took the intake box and hose out, and coupled to the intake with a plumbers hose and some hose clamps, a conical K&N filter (new).
Definitely more noiser (the sucking in of air was apperant), and definitely better throttle response...it really wound up fast then...
...however, and I distinctly remember this, each time I'd change my oil and go to wipe out around the butterfly valve, there'd be a really fine layer of dust there. Not a ton, but enough that I now know there was definitely at least a fine amount of dirt getting through.
This IMHO is not good for an engine long term.
After that experience - the car was totalled after some kid younger than me blew through a stop sign and t-boned me - I've stuck to paper filters.
Just my experience, take it for what it's worth....
Chuck
I used to drive a 3.0L Plymouth Acclaim...while it was a total looking grandpa car (or, almost total), the 3.0L was one nice engine.
Each time I'd change the oil, I'd check the air filter and for whatever reason, wipe around were the butterfly valve was on the intake.
With the stock paper Fram filter, it was always clean.
I think took the intake box and hose out, and coupled to the intake with a plumbers hose and some hose clamps, a conical K&N filter (new).
Definitely more noiser (the sucking in of air was apperant), and definitely better throttle response...it really wound up fast then...
...however, and I distinctly remember this, each time I'd change my oil and go to wipe out around the butterfly valve, there'd be a really fine layer of dust there. Not a ton, but enough that I now know there was definitely at least a fine amount of dirt getting through.
This IMHO is not good for an engine long term.
After that experience - the car was totalled after some kid younger than me blew through a stop sign and t-boned me - I've stuck to paper filters.
Just my experience, take it for what it's worth....
Chuck
If you don't want the bad filtration of a K&N but don't want the restriction of a hard core paper filter.
Why not just rig it up so you have a way bigger paper filter?
That is what I did. It flows more air then the stock size K&N and filters way better.
I call it filter over kill.
Why not just rig it up so you have a way bigger paper filter?
That is what I did. It flows more air then the stock size K&N and filters way better.
I call it filter over kill.
Guys I have had K&N filters for years in multiple vehicles. No MAF sensor problems. They flow better period and common sense equates this to more power and economy. Maybe not much but some none the less which is free because they pay for themselves over the years.
Dusty behind your K & N, THAT'S FUNNY. Dust gets by your paper filter as well it is just that some of the oil out of the K & N gets on the intake tube and the dust sticks to it.
Oil analysis showing higher concentrations of what ? Caused by what ? Dust you say ? Prove that would be the better trick !
Dusty behind your K & N, THAT'S FUNNY. Dust gets by your paper filter as well it is just that some of the oil out of the K & N gets on the intake tube and the dust sticks to it.
Oil analysis showing higher concentrations of what ? Caused by what ? Dust you say ? Prove that would be the better trick !
Yep, and common sense would tell ya that more airflow = more dirt ingestion.
No. In order to undeniably, irrefutably, removing all variables which might raise doubt and establish actual proof, you would need to take two identical new vehicles, install a K&N on one, drive them both the same distance in the same environment for an extended period of time, doing mutiple oil analysis at the same intervals.
Sorry gents, but seems to me like everything else here in this thread is just rhetoric and speculation along with dubious and/or anecdotal evidence.
Sorry gents, but seems to me like everything else here in this thread is just rhetoric and speculation along with dubious and/or anecdotal evidence.
It is like beating your head on a brick wall trying to explain this to people. I have yet to find an air intake system where the air filter was the limiting restriction to airflow. For that matter I have never seen a HP comparison using a drop in K&N vs a new paper filter that wasn't sponsored by..............K&N.
Great marketing, I'll give them that. I am still trying to figure out the increased mileage claims from using a K&N as well.
You don't read many articles in HOT ROD or CAR CRAFT OR on and on and on then do you ? It isn't much but it is there and it is FREE POWER because these pay for themselves over time.
An engine is basically an air pump. More air in more air out. Most dragsters have no air filter, maybe some of you
think they need a paper filter on there ?
THE ONLY REASON YOU SEE THE DIRT ON THE INTAKE WITH A K & N
IS BECAUSE OF A LITTLE OIL GETTING PAST IT. Your paper filter lets dust by it also. If you believe not your lost.
If your paper filter was so EFFICIENT as to not allow any dust no matter how fine the particulate was it simply would not allow your engine to run.
An engine is basically an air pump. More air in more air out. Most dragsters have no air filter, maybe some of you
think they need a paper filter on there ?
THE ONLY REASON YOU SEE THE DIRT ON THE INTAKE WITH A K & N
IS BECAUSE OF A LITTLE OIL GETTING PAST IT. Your paper filter lets dust by it also. If you believe not your lost.
If your paper filter was so EFFICIENT as to not allow any dust no matter how fine the particulate was it simply would not allow your engine to run.
Well that "better type of filter media" isn't K&N filter media. You forget that oil can/will damage the MAF on top of increased dirt ingestion. If you don't have the common sense to realize that you're going to ingest more dirt with a K&N then I guess there's no hope for you.
It's amazing how marketing of some products will skew a person's common sense. I just don't see how people can get excited about MINIMAL amount of increased airflow into their engine at the cost of more dirt ingestion.
Once again, the evidence is in the picture:
Case closed in my book!
K&N =
If a K&N helps with performance and MPG's,why aren't the auto manufacturers installing them in vehicles.
I'm sure the cost would not be that much do to volume of sales.
The CAFE numbers would improve if K&N's really did anything.
The so called benefits of using a K&N would be worth the extra few dollars for a auto manufacturer...if it really did what K&N says it does.
I'm sure the cost would not be that much do to volume of sales.
The CAFE numbers would improve if K&N's really did anything.
The so called benefits of using a K&N would be worth the extra few dollars for a auto manufacturer...if it really did what K&N says it does.
- Status
