Same ol song and dance with K&N.... who really cares.
K&N filter after 75 k miles
- Thread starter wrcsixeight
- Start date
- Status
There are two distinct groups on K&N air filter, hate it and love it, there is no middle ground.
I never tried K&N air filter, the reason is I don't like to spend times to correctly clean and re-oil the filter once every year or so. The air filter is not so expensive, $10-30 every 3-5 years is less than a cup of Starbucks latte a semester.
I never tried K&N air filter, the reason is I don't like to spend times to correctly clean and re-oil the filter once every year or so. The air filter is not so expensive, $10-30 every 3-5 years is less than a cup of Starbucks latte a semester.
Don't let my previous response fool you into thinking I'm hooked on oiled cotton gauze.Like you said, the dirt on the OCG filter (or a foam sock) is what "equalizes" them. OCG fitlers are the only one that I found dust on the clean side of my tract too.
The last engine I had an OCG filter on changed my mind. I noticed dust on the clean side. It was on a high desert trail rig that saw a lot of dirt. As a test, I put a smear of grease in the tract behind the filter. After a long period of 'wheeling, I checked it and it was gritty. That was it. I installed a synthetic media filter and housing from a 640CI farm tractor. Enough flow (my engine was a turbochaged 379 ci TD), better filtration with a fuel element filter... plus it was washable. It was a Donaldson media, but I don't remember which one.
The last engine I had an OCG filter on changed my mind. I noticed dust on the clean side. It was on a high desert trail rig that saw a lot of dirt. As a test, I put a smear of grease in the tract behind the filter. After a long period of 'wheeling, I checked it and it was gritty. That was it. I installed a synthetic media filter and housing from a 640CI farm tractor. Enough flow (my engine was a turbochaged 379 ci TD), better filtration with a fuel element filter... plus it was washable. It was a Donaldson media, but I don't remember which one.
^I just wish I could find something like this for the Civic. I'm going over to a Wix/Napa Gold otherwise.
I don't love or hate K&N air filters. I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed...so you guessed it. Changing the filter and going to compare numbers.
I don't love or hate K&N air filters. I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed...so you guessed it. Changing the filter and going to compare numbers.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed.
What does "low Si" mean quantitatively? What is considered "unacceptably elevated"? What is the amount that makes you feel annoyed?
I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed.
What does "low Si" mean quantitatively? What is considered "unacceptably elevated"? What is the amount that makes you feel annoyed?
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There are two distinct groups on K&N air filter, hate it and love it, there is no middle ground.
True...you're either sucked into the marketing hype or you are disgusted by it.
There are two distinct groups on K&N air filter, hate it and love it, there is no middle ground.
True...you're either sucked into the marketing hype or you are disgusted by it.
Originally Posted By: barlowc
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed.
What does "low Si" mean quantitatively? What is considered "unacceptably elevated"? What is the amount that makes you feel annoyed?
When you have choices, there is no need for anyone to be annoyed.
If you look around objectively, you'll find that oiled cotton gauze (OCG) filters are at the low end of the filtering efficiency scale. Not disastrously or instant death low... just lower. How much lower? It's about time to make another survey, but last time I accumulated comparable data, the averaged OCG filter tests I could find yielded a high 98 percent range (see note on filter tests below). The OEM can easily match that today and premium dry media filters are in the high 99 percent and don't cost any more than the OCGs on the market.
How much a 1-2 percent difference in filtering efficiency mean? Depending on where you live, maybe not much. Or maybe a lot! If the area where you live has generally clean, low dust air, an OCG filter will be fine. If you live where there is a lot of fine dust, not so much... and it will show up in the UOA. Eventually it may show up in a shorter engine life. Less silicon is always better. Single digits are "acceptable" by most any standards. Some labs have slightly higher or lower condemnation rates but I really haven't looked around to compare them. High silicon is a long term issue, not a short one. To me it's just common sense to go with the highest efficiency media and try to keep the silicon low. But I drive my cars for decades. Might not matter much to somebody who trades in regularly.
The larger concern for me regarding OCG filter is down the road. Cleaning. An improperly cleaned OCG filter can get into the "disastrous" region fast because they are so easily damaged (as is the one in the picture).
OCG had it's day. Back in the '60s and '70s, they were superior in efficiency to oil bath and many old style cellulose filters. That was the day when you hoo-rahed getting 100K miles from an engine. In those days, many air filters were too small for the application if you wanted any performance, so changing to an open, free-flowing filter often unlocked some power and did so with equivalent filtration efficiency. Win win, for sure.
Today, most intake systems are pretty efficient and the average engine can easily do 200K with a modicum of care. They are well designed too and intake systems are one reason today's engines are so much more powerful per cubic inch of displacement than they used to be. The OE systems are so much better that aftermarket stuff doesn't show up quite so good any more (on an otherwise stock engine).
If you are going for an aftermarket filter for the performance aspects, fair enough. Bear in mind two things, a) you can have 99+ percent filtration with a performance system, and b) in an otherwise stock engine, you aren't likely to see any gains from a drop-in filter that uses the original intake system. You MAY see some gains in the upper rpm range with a system that replaces all the intake tract with something tuned but that's variable according to, a) how good the new system is vs the old and, b) how well designed the new piece is.
Finally, look closely at the filtration efficiency tests you might see published. There are some that use the equivalent of gravel for test dust and others that use fine dust. I was once fooled into accepting OCG filters as "better" based on a test done in the UK but then it was pointed out to me that hardly any fine dust was used in that test, so of course it came out good. I'm not going into all the wherefores here, just advise getting the details of any tests you want to compare and make sure you are comparing apples to apples in terms of the test conditions (e.g. the type of test dust used) in any filtration tests. A good test will list the type of test dust used (e.g. ASTM "Fine" dust) and often it's general makeup in particle size.
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
I just prefer low Si and if it's allowing in an unacceptably elevated amount of Si, then I would not use it. So far, it hasn't been terrible with the K&N in my app, but enough to make me feel annoyed.
What does "low Si" mean quantitatively? What is considered "unacceptably elevated"? What is the amount that makes you feel annoyed?
When you have choices, there is no need for anyone to be annoyed.
If you look around objectively, you'll find that oiled cotton gauze (OCG) filters are at the low end of the filtering efficiency scale. Not disastrously or instant death low... just lower. How much lower? It's about time to make another survey, but last time I accumulated comparable data, the averaged OCG filter tests I could find yielded a high 98 percent range (see note on filter tests below). The OEM can easily match that today and premium dry media filters are in the high 99 percent and don't cost any more than the OCGs on the market.
How much a 1-2 percent difference in filtering efficiency mean? Depending on where you live, maybe not much. Or maybe a lot! If the area where you live has generally clean, low dust air, an OCG filter will be fine. If you live where there is a lot of fine dust, not so much... and it will show up in the UOA. Eventually it may show up in a shorter engine life. Less silicon is always better. Single digits are "acceptable" by most any standards. Some labs have slightly higher or lower condemnation rates but I really haven't looked around to compare them. High silicon is a long term issue, not a short one. To me it's just common sense to go with the highest efficiency media and try to keep the silicon low. But I drive my cars for decades. Might not matter much to somebody who trades in regularly.
The larger concern for me regarding OCG filter is down the road. Cleaning. An improperly cleaned OCG filter can get into the "disastrous" region fast because they are so easily damaged (as is the one in the picture).
OCG had it's day. Back in the '60s and '70s, they were superior in efficiency to oil bath and many old style cellulose filters. That was the day when you hoo-rahed getting 100K miles from an engine. In those days, many air filters were too small for the application if you wanted any performance, so changing to an open, free-flowing filter often unlocked some power and did so with equivalent filtration efficiency. Win win, for sure.
Today, most intake systems are pretty efficient and the average engine can easily do 200K with a modicum of care. They are well designed too and intake systems are one reason today's engines are so much more powerful per cubic inch of displacement than they used to be. The OE systems are so much better that aftermarket stuff doesn't show up quite so good any more (on an otherwise stock engine).
If you are going for an aftermarket filter for the performance aspects, fair enough. Bear in mind two things, a) you can have 99+ percent filtration with a performance system, and b) in an otherwise stock engine, you aren't likely to see any gains from a drop-in filter that uses the original intake system. You MAY see some gains in the upper rpm range with a system that replaces all the intake tract with something tuned but that's variable according to, a) how good the new system is vs the old and, b) how well designed the new piece is.
Finally, look closely at the filtration efficiency tests you might see published. There are some that use the equivalent of gravel for test dust and others that use fine dust. I was once fooled into accepting OCG filters as "better" based on a test done in the UK but then it was pointed out to me that hardly any fine dust was used in that test, so of course it came out good. I'm not going into all the wherefores here, just advise getting the details of any tests you want to compare and make sure you are comparing apples to apples in terms of the test conditions (e.g. the type of test dust used) in any filtration tests. A good test will list the type of test dust used (e.g. ASTM "Fine" dust) and often it's general makeup in particle size.
Last edited:
I used to be a K&N user, putting them in all my cars. I just started replacing them all back to paper. I just didn't feel like risky the extra dirt, oil on the MAF sensor and for only 5hp more at like near red line...not worth it to me anymore.
My latest UOA shows no signs of problems from my use of a K&N. Silicon was at 13 with the universal average being 14.
Back when I was just introduced to the K&N hype, I opened a K&N box for my first car, pulled out the filter to take a peek at it, and immediately noticed the holes in it. Needless to say, I put it back.
I've had problems with Wix too, filters not being a 100% right size. I wasn't ashamed to bring it back for a refund either. Ever since that little issue and with their garbage cartridge oil filters, I went back to Purolator and never looked back.
I've had problems with Wix too, filters not being a 100% right size. I wasn't ashamed to bring it back for a refund either. Ever since that little issue and with their garbage cartridge oil filters, I went back to Purolator and never looked back.
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Have you seen any rocks, debris or birds in your oil drain pan? I would say that is one shot filter. They (the engineers) still haven't been able to beat a good quality paper filter.
Thanks for the pics! I just hate to think what kind of abrasives were getting into your engine the last 25k+ miles.
Rocks, birds... that's funny right there! The only thing a K&N filter is good for is as a PRE-filter to your actual filter. It will filter out the coarse stuff while your real filter will do the rest and last longer. K&N's are used a lot like this in the ATV community, especially when the vehicle is snorkled. Even then the K&N is wrapped with its own prefilter to shed mud/water. I would NEVER use a K&N as a stand alone filter for anything, not even my lawn mower.
Have you seen any rocks, debris or birds in your oil drain pan? I would say that is one shot filter. They (the engineers) still haven't been able to beat a good quality paper filter.
Thanks for the pics! I just hate to think what kind of abrasives were getting into your engine the last 25k+ miles.
Rocks, birds... that's funny right there! The only thing a K&N filter is good for is as a PRE-filter to your actual filter. It will filter out the coarse stuff while your real filter will do the rest and last longer. K&N's are used a lot like this in the ATV community, especially when the vehicle is snorkled. Even then the K&N is wrapped with its own prefilter to shed mud/water. I would NEVER use a K&N as a stand alone filter for anything, not even my lawn mower.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
If you look around objectively, you'll find that oiled cotton gauze (OCG) filters are at the low end of the filtering efficiency scale. Not disastrously or instant death low... just lower. How much lower? It's about time to make another survey, but last time I accumulated comparable data, the averaged OCG filter tests I could find yielded a high 98 percent range (see note on filter tests below). The OEM can easily match that today and premium dry media filters are in the high 99 percent and don't cost any more than the OCGs on the market.
Another way to look at it is that if a K&N is 98% efficient and a paper element is 99.5% efficient, the K&N is passing 4 times as much dirt as the paper element. K&N will tell you that isn't important. I choose to disagree.
If you look around objectively, you'll find that oiled cotton gauze (OCG) filters are at the low end of the filtering efficiency scale. Not disastrously or instant death low... just lower. How much lower? It's about time to make another survey, but last time I accumulated comparable data, the averaged OCG filter tests I could find yielded a high 98 percent range (see note on filter tests below). The OEM can easily match that today and premium dry media filters are in the high 99 percent and don't cost any more than the OCGs on the market.
Another way to look at it is that if a K&N is 98% efficient and a paper element is 99.5% efficient, the K&N is passing 4 times as much dirt as the paper element. K&N will tell you that isn't important. I choose to disagree.
How much dirt is 4 times as much?
Disclaimer: I do not have a K&N in my vehicle. I merely want to point out how little dirt your engine ingests regardless of air filter.
I went to the K&N website and found the filter for my vehicle. 33-2385. According to a test done according to ISO 5011 protocol, this filter is 99% efficient and holds 149.5 grams of dirt before plugging. This means about a teaspoon of dirt got past the filter in its lifetime. How long is that lifetime? Years in my case. After 35000km the filter minder on my truck hasn't moved, so I've still got lots of life in my OEM filter.
So even though paper filters are more efficient than OCG, I do not berate people for using them, nor do I think K&N filters equal engine demise. I do suggest that a better use of funds is to invest in a filter minder as it's surprising just how long an air filter lasts before plugging and most people change them way too often.
Disclaimer: I do not have a K&N in my vehicle. I merely want to point out how little dirt your engine ingests regardless of air filter.
I went to the K&N website and found the filter for my vehicle. 33-2385. According to a test done according to ISO 5011 protocol, this filter is 99% efficient and holds 149.5 grams of dirt before plugging. This means about a teaspoon of dirt got past the filter in its lifetime. How long is that lifetime? Years in my case. After 35000km the filter minder on my truck hasn't moved, so I've still got lots of life in my OEM filter.
So even though paper filters are more efficient than OCG, I do not berate people for using them, nor do I think K&N filters equal engine demise. I do suggest that a better use of funds is to invest in a filter minder as it's surprising just how long an air filter lasts before plugging and most people change them way too often.
my 2cents: and yes i do have a k&n cone filter on my CAI (installed by previous owner, and stock airbox is present, but sliced & diced, would need to buy another to go back to standard type)
the folks @K&N, say to clean the filter every 50k miles or so.
K&N Air Filter Cleaning instructions, knfilters.com
so the folks who are cleaning it, even with the proper kit, and procedures, but are doing it once a year, or what ever, may still be doing it too often.(unless you drive 50,000 mi/yr)
Dirty and Clean filter pictures, knfilters.com
from http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#4
"4. How often do I need to clean my K&N air filter?
If you have not experienced a decrease in mileage or engine performance, chances are your filter is fine and does not yet need cleaning. To be more specific, the filter does not require cleaning if you can still see the wire screen on the entire air filter regardless of how dirty it may appear. When the screen is no longer visible some place on the filter, it is time to clean it. When used in normal paved road, street or highway conditions, our replacement air filters that fit in the factory air box should require cleaning every 50,000 miles and our large conical filters on an intake system should require cleaning every 100,000 miles. When used in dusty or off-road environments, our filters will require cleaning more often. We recommend that you visually inspect your filter once every 25,000 miles to determine if the screen is still visible. "
the folks @K&N, say to clean the filter every 50k miles or so.
K&N Air Filter Cleaning instructions, knfilters.com
so the folks who are cleaning it, even with the proper kit, and procedures, but are doing it once a year, or what ever, may still be doing it too often.(unless you drive 50,000 mi/yr)
Dirty and Clean filter pictures, knfilters.com
from http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#4
"4. How often do I need to clean my K&N air filter?
If you have not experienced a decrease in mileage or engine performance, chances are your filter is fine and does not yet need cleaning. To be more specific, the filter does not require cleaning if you can still see the wire screen on the entire air filter regardless of how dirty it may appear. When the screen is no longer visible some place on the filter, it is time to clean it. When used in normal paved road, street or highway conditions, our replacement air filters that fit in the factory air box should require cleaning every 50,000 miles and our large conical filters on an intake system should require cleaning every 100,000 miles. When used in dusty or off-road environments, our filters will require cleaning more often. We recommend that you visually inspect your filter once every 25,000 miles to determine if the screen is still visible. "
Last edited:
I had one look like that but I think it was because an insti change place cleaned it and dried it with compressed air blowing out some media. Is it possible it happened here too?
Originally Posted By: johnachak
I had one look like that but I think it was because an insti change place cleaned it and dried it with compressed air blowing out some media. Is it possible it happened here too?
No, I'd never use compressed air on it and perform all maintenance myself.
I had one look like that but I think it was because an insti change place cleaned it and dried it with compressed air blowing out some media. Is it possible it happened here too?
No, I'd never use compressed air on it and perform all maintenance myself.
- Status
