K&N Oil filters

[day1si]

In a direct marketing meeting today with K&N I stated that I had "heard" that their oil filters had changed build wise over the years. The presenter was unaware of any change and said he would be willing to look into it.
I don't have time to search the forums, but where, why, what had been presented against the K&N Oil filters in the recent past? I recall several individuals speaking badly on them, and I thought I recalled someone cutting a newer one open compared to an older one.
Please post if you have factual and or first hand information and I will see what K&N has to say about it.
Jp

 

[ULVER]

I don't know of a change in the filters internally, in the past few years.

I have used them for a while, till they broke $10 each. I always heard they were a fast-flow filter, and seemed to be built like a tank w/ quality components.

They never caised the stink, the air filters did around these parts.

 

[dwendt44]

K&N oil filters are only rated at 90% efficiency, while many other quality filters are rated at 96% or better.

 

[Terry]

K&N oil filters have not changed that I am aware of. Using JUST the efficiency rating is misleading as the K&N OF will hardly ever go into bypass. Meaning capacity and life of actual filtering might miss a percentage of very small particles but trumps most OTC oil filters that cycle in and out of bypass ( with NO filtering taking place) like Bill Clinton and his lovers.

 

[Ray H]

K&N - one of the best Champion Labs oil filters made - at any price...

 

[day1si]

Fine then, just make me look bad and misinformed!!!

I won't say anything to them then.

Actually I will email the gentleman and apologize for my misinformation so that he is not on a crusade of information for nothing. I'll even include this link. So play nice, or don't.

Jp

 

[T-Keith]

If flow is what you're looking for, pass up the big buck K&N and find yourself a Purolator for $3. It flows even better.

 

[Patman]

Quote:

---

If flow is what you're looking for, pass up the big buck K&N and find yourself a Purolator for $3. It flows even better.

---

Somehow I highly doubt that.

 

[TooSlick]

Terry,

I think you need to stop watching "Days Of Our Lives" and "The View" during the day out in the shop... But I digress...

One interesting thing I noted the one time I ran a K&N oil filter on my old Audi 100 (with factory installed "VDO", oil pressure & temp gauges), is that the gauge consistently read higher oil pressure w/ the K&N, compared to the Mobil 1 filter I tried right before that. (These were both full quart filters, the equivalent of a FRAM "PH-8A"). I took this higher and more consistent oil pressure to mean the filter was less restrictive? (PSID), which is a good thing and prevents the bypass situation as you've mentioned.

Enjoyed our little chat the other day and took care of your request. Hope I didn't keep you from finishing the "Honey-Do" list.

Ted

 

[T-Keith]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If flow is what you're looking for, pass up the big buck K&N and find yourself a Purolator for $3. It flows even better.

---

Somehow I highly doubt that.

---

Didn't you read Grease's oil filter study? That was the result, I'm not sure why you wouldn't believe it. K&N just gets a reputation for flow from their marketing, and everyone assumes they flow the best. While they do outflow many other brands, Purolator, and I think Baldwin and Donaldson outflowed K&N. Purolator did it while filtering better if memory serves right.

Unfortunately the study is no longer online.

 

[Patman]

I just find it hard to believe that a filter made with cheap paper media could possibly outflow a synthetic blended media like the K&N.

 

[Terry]

Slick, that was NPR's "The World". I live with 2 remaining Women in the house and rest assured in the office ( attached to the back of the house) or my humble one hole shop non of those will be seen or heard! Thanks for getting the order out.

On the pressure readings for that fine Audi, the M1 showed lower pressure because it was STUCK in BYPASS. I guarantee it.

Keith, things change and for now K&N and even better Amsoil EaO are making enough of a difference in our test results that I recommend their use over the other FF filters.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

the M1 showed lower pressure because it was STUCK in BYPASS. I guarantee it.

---

Really? Are all the M1 filters prone to be in bypass? Is this due to their high-efficiency achieved through less than current technology results in them restricting flow through the media sooner in their life cycle?

 

[T-Keith]

Unless things have changed, which I haven't seen anything actually proving they did, K&N has a paper media too. A few glass fibers doesn't make it that special in my book.

Terry, have you seen anything that would show Purolators doing especially bad? Flow is pretty easily measured, so unless K&N has some super secret, I don't what they are doing differently to justify the high buck price.

-T

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm still trying to figure how a filter can produce a static elevated pressure 24/7. Even the most dense used filter, that produces an elevated PSID, always retreats to a lower pressure after warm up.

So, I can see a K&N giving you a higher cold pressure indistion (assuming that you don't peak out) ..and a higher transitional pressure (from off peak to full warmup) ..but a static difference is a bit hard to figure. That is, unless you're in some state of relief with the pump.

I've just discussed this to great length with Highroller with his Titan. His startup pressure is 40 ..with either a PureOne or a Wix. When cold, however, his pressure elevates with the WIX (IIRC). After warm up ..the pressure retreats to the normal 40 psi (which is where it stays until in excess of 2100 rpms).

I assert that 40 is his regulated relief limit. There would be no other explanation for a constant 40 psi hot/cold otherwise. What works in my head is that, although in relief, the relief port is of limited capacity to shunt flow. Your greatest potential, imho, for fitler PSID is during pump relief. The filter doesn't have to fall into a hierarchy of resistance with the engine. Typically, if you can relieve enough flow, the downstream pressure will be reduced ..and the upstream pressure just sit there at the limit. OTOH, if the relief was of limited capacity, the flow downstream would not be AS limited ..nor would the upstream pressure elevation.

I know that might be a bit much to decipher with the way I post ..so pick it apart for further discussion.

Essentially, if you're not in pump relief, I cannot see a filter having much in terms of PSID ..even when plugged. This is naturally due to my observations.

 

[427Z06]

Maybe TooSlick was doing one of his 20,000 mile Amsoil runs with that M1? Could be the case in that scenario the M1 filter, being more efficient, would reach the end of it's useful life a lot quicker than the K&N.

As a side note, both the M1 and K&N boast synthetic blend media. I also wonder if the new M1 EP filter media is any different than the previous version?

 

[LordAbbett]

Well do we know if the K&N and the Mobil1 Audi filters use the same bypass pressure rating? Both being Champ filters you'd think so.
Also on Highrollers' Titan. Doesn't 40 lbs seem awfully low for for the pump relief? If so ..bypass seems like it would have to be a really low pressure too.

 

[Gary Allan]

VW/AUDI filters tend to have very high bypass ratings. This could throw something odd into the mix. As 427 suggests, there are loading conditions that can occur over longer OCIs ..but we don't know that yet.


40 lbs would be a pretty low relief setting by most standards. However, in his comments ..the 40 is a flat condition from idle to 2100 rpm ..so it's not a low idle pressure ..nor an intermediate pressure ..the only thing odd about it is being the relief setting.

It's almost like synthetic oil vs. dino in VI. His pressure doesn't twitch as much under different conditions.

There's got to be some unusual circumstances here that beat the ________ out of me to explain ..or, better stated, I can only speculate since they're sorta counter to my real world observations. Anything I pull out of my behind is going to be based on that.


For example, I could take both of those filters and get identical results between them under my testing. I'm very confident in that. Outside of any one filter's defect (unlikely, but possible) every fitler I used showed like responses to temp, visc, and volume. To get a measurable reaction I had to use a 10k old filter with very heavy oil at a very cold starting temp. Even that (mostly) disappeared with warming.