I was working on my carb today and had the air filter assembly off. The fiter is a 14 x 4 inch K&N that has about 30,000 miles on it. I cleaned it at 20,000 following K&Ns cleaning instructions. Anyway, today I held it up to the sunight and was shocked about what I saw. I observed a great number of holes in the media that were about the size of a small needle. I turned the filter and obsved the same thing all of the way around. I will try to take some pics and post them. Meanwhile, went to Pep Boys and bought a Purolator paper filter. Back to paper.
K&N out / put paper back in
- Thread starter rn2fine
- Start date
- Status
I found dirt on the inside of the filter base housing. I did not look inside of carb. The size of the particles was somewhat alarming to me. Allow me to clarify "see through". I am not talking about being able to just see light. I am talking about being able to see (as in look at objects) through the holes if I get close enough. I have used K&Ns for years and this is most disappointing to me. I still have K&Ns on two other vehicles that I have not checked yet.
By the way 04SpecV, when you said "Of course you can see thru a K&N" does that mean that you have observed holes in a K&N as I have described? Again, I am not just talking about light. I am talking about holes that you can see through. Is this normal for K&N?
I ran a K&N cone filter for 5K miles and I noticed this also, some amount of grime on inside bottom of the filter base. It's kind of troubling, especially since the filter was new and "preoiled".
I didn't have this problem with an AEM dryflow cone filter.
I trashed my K&N after noticing similar grit in the filter housing, and finding a gummed up IAC.
About five years ago went through the same revelation and removed the K&N immediately!
Kudos on going back to paper. Welcome back to common sense. That KN is a slippery fish, with their fancy marketing dept.
I know this is a faily old thread im back to paper too.
True, true, true. If you want more dirt in your engine and a gummed up MAF sensor, then install a K&N air filter.
Maybe this is hit-or-miss because I have used several K&Ns over the years on several vehicles without problems. I've even ran UOAs on a couple of them with no problems found. Before BITOG I ran a K&N on every vehicle. After BITOG I have really taken a look at MPG and UOA of my vehicles with and without K&N and determined that my "every-day" vehicles do not need a K&N and do not gain (any noticable) MPG with one. However, the vehicles that I am trying to get extra HP and better throttle response from are still getting the K&N. I tried the old Amsoil foam filter on one vehicle and MPG went into the toilet. I am now running the new EAA filter on one vehicle that I just bought last month and only have two fuel tanks to compare, one pre-EAA and one post-EAA and am happy to report that the mileage slightly improved, however I cannot atribute that solely to the EAA since I performed a lot of maintenance services during the time period. I am just happy that the mileage didn't go down like it did when I used the foam filter on another vehicle.
Maybe I have just been lucky with my K&Ns and others haven't but the two vehicles that I did a UOA on had low wear and low silicon levels. Perhaps K&N is outsourcing some of their manufacture or their QC is not good on some product lines. The "drop-in" type filters that I normally use have never had quality issues.
One thing about the MAF; I believe that the sensors are becoming more and more sensitive through the years and incidents of MAF fouling are becoming more common. I have in my possesion a letter from K&N about the testing that they do of failed MAF sensors, signed by Arleen Priutt, Consumer Relations, Dated August 27, 2007, as follows: "Silicone is used in mass air flow sensors to insulate the electronic circuit board from moisture and vibration. Experience has shown that most repair shops are not aware of the silicone gel used in MAF sensors and therefore, are unable to conclude that a sensor may be contaminating itself. Because of this lack of information, unfortunately for us, some repair shops immediately conclude that it is K&N's aftermarket filter that contaminates MAF sensors." and further, "K&N's independent extensive testing has found no instances where its filter oil has ever contaminated a mass air flow sensor."
I have seen that K&N rigorously defends their product but I've also seen manufacturers putting bulletins out about MAF sensor fouling from using oiled air filters. For me, I am still willing to take a chance if I am trying to squeeze power and throttle response out of an engine, but otherwise I'd rather avoid any possible headaches down the road and just use plain paper or an Amsoil EAA.
Maybe I have just been lucky with my K&Ns and others haven't but the two vehicles that I did a UOA on had low wear and low silicon levels. Perhaps K&N is outsourcing some of their manufacture or their QC is not good on some product lines. The "drop-in" type filters that I normally use have never had quality issues.
One thing about the MAF; I believe that the sensors are becoming more and more sensitive through the years and incidents of MAF fouling are becoming more common. I have in my possesion a letter from K&N about the testing that they do of failed MAF sensors, signed by Arleen Priutt, Consumer Relations, Dated August 27, 2007, as follows: "Silicone is used in mass air flow sensors to insulate the electronic circuit board from moisture and vibration. Experience has shown that most repair shops are not aware of the silicone gel used in MAF sensors and therefore, are unable to conclude that a sensor may be contaminating itself. Because of this lack of information, unfortunately for us, some repair shops immediately conclude that it is K&N's aftermarket filter that contaminates MAF sensors." and further, "K&N's independent extensive testing has found no instances where its filter oil has ever contaminated a mass air flow sensor."
I have seen that K&N rigorously defends their product but I've also seen manufacturers putting bulletins out about MAF sensor fouling from using oiled air filters. For me, I am still willing to take a chance if I am trying to squeeze power and throttle response out of an engine, but otherwise I'd rather avoid any possible headaches down the road and just use plain paper or an Amsoil EAA.
If the K+N is not over oiled, and you drive in a dust free area, they can work fine.
Is there such a place That's dust free, if so why use a filter at all.
That whooshing sound you heard over your head wasn't a low flying aircraft.
i've used a k&n filter in dust storms of the likes many people have never seen and pulled them afterwards for a white tissue paper swab of the intake tract to find nothing but white tissue paper...
...not that i subscribe to the idea that dirt clings to the intake tract after infiltrating a filter, rather a dissenting observation offered to those who find grit in the system beyond the filter (i would posit that dirt clinging to the intake tract is aided by a sticky substance not unlike the oil used in such filters and i'd surmise that oil in the intake tract would likely have originated at the filter) i've yet to reproduce results of filter oil in my own intake tract downstream of the filter
...i have found that my filter is capable of trapping and holding quite a bit of dirt in such conditions, as evident by the sheer weight of the dirty filter and the silt in the sink as i clean it
i've yet to experience any mass air sensor pollution problems nor any sealing problems with the filter gasket
i suppose time will tell what kind of fool i am...
...not that i subscribe to the idea that dirt clings to the intake tract after infiltrating a filter, rather a dissenting observation offered to those who find grit in the system beyond the filter (i would posit that dirt clinging to the intake tract is aided by a sticky substance not unlike the oil used in such filters and i'd surmise that oil in the intake tract would likely have originated at the filter) i've yet to reproduce results of filter oil in my own intake tract downstream of the filter
...i have found that my filter is capable of trapping and holding quite a bit of dirt in such conditions, as evident by the sheer weight of the dirty filter and the silt in the sink as i clean it
i've yet to experience any mass air sensor pollution problems nor any sealing problems with the filter gasket
i suppose time will tell what kind of fool i am...
I had been running a K&N air filter in my 1994 Ford Thunderbird (4.6 V8) for about two years. Last Friday I pulled it, vaccuumed the filter housing, and replaced it with a Wix paper filter. Although I thought I noticed more "pick-up" in acceleration when I first installed the K&N (probably the placebo effect), I have noticed no difference in my acceleration and overall performance since last Friday. I never noticed a change in fuel economy with any air filter I used, so I doubt anything will change in that area. Now that I know my acceleration is not affected, I think using standard paper filters (that provide better filtration anyway) is a pretty obvious choice for my situation.
- Status
Similar threads
