For every negative UOA and 'independant' test against K&N, you can find positive ones. I can only site personal experience (UOA for my old 2005, 150k mile Mitsubishi Evolution VIII) where the Si was 6. Other friends using K&N on their Volvo 240 for 230k miles and still running strong. Neither engine ever cracked open. Does this all mean the K&N is filtering better than a paper type? Probably not. But it also alludes to the insignificant, miniscule increases (one grain of sand v two) of silicon that may be Introduced, depending on application, by using a K&N. If you are careful reoiling it as we are careful doing anything else with our engines, you will be fine, and you will be alleviating a tiny bit of stress on our landfills. That reason alone is enough for many users.
Originally Posted By: skyship
BIGJL: This forum does amaze with its hatred towards something that has been on sale in the UK for well over twenty years. I always thought K&N was a UK company, perhaps that is significant. It's not hatred, but just informed opinion based on reading factual test results and UOA Silicon contamination figures in particular. Fitting a K & N filter only offers minimal performance improvement results, but often results in more long term engine wear.