K&N vs Paper - Oil Analysis Results
- Thread starter Oldswagon
- Start date
- Status
Kemo Sabe, I noticed the same thing on my Dakota pickup, & later on my Neon. With paper filter, when I wiped the inside ot the AF housing/airbox/airpipe, I got multicolored dust all over my finger. With the K&N, it's just not there. Which filters better? I dunno, but the absence of dust downstream of the air filter seems to be a good sign to me.
Get um up, Scout!
hey thats great having almost literally no dirt at all!! that is the only thing im concerned about in those filters. still debating if i should go for it.
satterfi:
Then have fun with the dripping oil!!! I think they put about as much oil in paper filters as they do in K&N style filters nowadays...
I have to spend $18 on a new paper filter for the 5.4L SOHC V8. I bought the Kool Blue for $32 and it should last me a lifetime AND filter extremely well. You can't beat that deal!
So far there's no hard evidence that using a K&N filter will cause severe or minor engine damage.
Then have fun with the dripping oil!!! I think they put about as much oil in paper filters as they do in K&N style filters nowadays...
I have to spend $18 on a new paper filter for the 5.4L SOHC V8. I bought the Kool Blue for $32 and it should last me a lifetime AND filter extremely well. You can't beat that deal!
So far there's no hard evidence that using a K&N filter will cause severe or minor engine damage.
Fortunatley I don't get filters with a bunch of oil on them(none that I can see). I'm using OEM Honda filters and Motorcraft.
Cost seems like a bargin at about $15/ea considering my motorcycle filter lists for $44. I guess the price of bike parts has desensitized my wallet.
Cost seems like a bargin at about $15/ea considering my motorcycle filter lists for $44. I guess the price of bike parts has desensitized my wallet.
i have used k&n filters for years and just realized in my new 4.6 and 5.4 that i had to clean the maf sensors evry month also had to clean the throttle body often leaving dirt..needless to say any of those filters in my opinion are not for me...i know use baldwin's filters blend of synthetics and paper filters 99.9% and flows at 400cpm's
i thought for hours last night and i will forget the k & n filter. too many IF's so im going to get baldwin filters for my car. i found one place that sells it and they are around 30 minutes away. high flow with no oil, sounds good to me.
thanks.
thanks.
I am talking about an OEM Motorcraft filter equipped in my 2003 E-250 from the factory. There is more oil on that paper filter than the K&N.
Plus I do not see a decrease in the amount of crud that builds up on the TB and MAF just from using paper. As long as you don't over-oil the K&N and don't wash it as often, you'll be fine.
I'm not convincing you to go K&N, just stating my observations.
[ April 20, 2003, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
Plus I do not see a decrease in the amount of crud that builds up on the TB and MAF just from using paper. As long as you don't over-oil the K&N and don't wash it as often, you'll be fine.
I'm not convincing you to go K&N, just stating my observations.
[ April 20, 2003, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
in my case i never did anything to the k&n just used right from the box on all my cars it made them all filthy...when they got dirty i just bought a new one...no more that crap for me..
After visiting this site, I started to get a little worried, but now I'm not really worried about the K&N cone filter on my neon. I have the iceman cold air setup, and i make sure the filter is clamped on good and tight.
Until I got the check valve, my engine tended to blow a little oil through the fresh air tube for the valve cover. So my plastic tube has a nice coating of mobil 1 inside, and it's actually pretty darn clean.
We'll see in another 10000 miles or so when i swap in my rebuilt "race" engine how good things look inside.
Until I got the check valve, my engine tended to blow a little oil through the fresh air tube for the valve cover. So my plastic tube has a nice coating of mobil 1 inside, and it's actually pretty darn clean.
We'll see in another 10000 miles or so when i swap in my rebuilt "race" engine how good things look inside.
Here is a 24 K mile run with my Jeep with a K&N installed. It's my opinion that the intake Q (flow rate or velocity) has more to do the the effectivness of the K&N than anything else. In my Jeep and Volvo application, the air box is already much larger than it needs to be to supply the motor under massive air acceleration, and therfore, the air movement across the filter media is rather slow, but fast enough to permit dirt to ADSORB onto the cotton media. I thing that under a high Q siutation, adsorbtion is difficult to achieve.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000248#000004
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000248#000004
Email from K&N:
> Actually, they shouldn't be running that ad any more. We sell to a lot of exhaust and turbo distributors and manufacturers and we did not want to upset them. The new TV ads involve our race teams and opera music (don't
ask). Also, we no longer advertise "up to" horsepower any more. We actually only publish averages. We have dynos here and only publish once 7 like vehicles are tested; dropping the highest and lowest and averaging the middle 5. For instance, we make a Typhoon Intake System for a WRX. We say it makes 11 HP at the wheels (yes we have a 4 whl dyno) or a 6% increase. However, one of the vehicles we tested made 20 HP and one made only 8 HP. The rest were all around 11 HP though. One would think all vehicles are the
same but in reality they are not even close. That is why we average.It gives a more realistic "real world" representation. The claim of "up to 25 HP" is valid though but was done on a Viper which has a huge baseline starting point. Here is what you can honestly expect. On average, a K&N drop-in replacement filter gives a 2 - 4 % increase and a K&N intake system a 5 - 7 % HP gain. Do not confuse another company's tube with one of our filters hung on the end as a K&N system though. We have no control on how
they might or might not perform. There are some applications which one simply cannot improve upon (BMW a good example) and for these, we do not
> offer intake systems for. They can buy are reusable replacement filter and
perhaps pick up a couple ponies but no kit will be offered. K&N is big time into integrity which we feel is what really sets us apart from our competitors.
Richard Blum
Program Manager
K&N Engineering, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blake Qualley [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:15 PM
> To: Blum, Richard; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: (rx7) RE: [Datalogit-FD3S] (all) Tech Study on K&N's
> --NOT GOOD !!
>
>
> Mr. Blum,
>
> Thank you for the reply. I'm sure I speak for many who also appreciate
> your input. However, I think we would appreciate your further input on
> the matter
> of horsepower claims made by K&N. I specifically refer to those
> advertisements in magazines and the spots on Speed Channel. These ads
> promise "up to" certain horsepower gains from simply replacing the
> filter
> and further claim that the effectiveness is on par or even more
> significant
> than replacing the exhaust or performing other "expensive"
> modifications,
> only for a fraction of the cost. Please tell me what the test vehicles
> were,
> the test conditions, and other details, as you have so appropriately
> done in
> debunking the filtering issue. Further, I would be interested on what
> claims
> K&N has made, or might wish to make, with respect to the rotary engine
> in
> general and certain RX-7 models in particular. This is very important to
> establishing your credibility as the horsepower claims, in my opinion,
> do
> not seem to remotely reflect reality in any car I have owned and tested.
> I
> have before and after dyno charts of my own vehicle showing 1 hp (cone
> replacement of air box), while another list member only documented 0.3
> hp
> improvement (drop-in stock filter replacement, IIRC). Obviously these
> were
> not "test conditions" so there are issues of validity, but they are
> "real
> world" tests by end-use customers who might like to know where the big
> gains
> are to be found. While I am not disappointed with any improvement, I
> question the appropriateness of larger claims made by your company, in
> the
> absence of supporting evidence, which might effectively prove misleading
> to
> other rotary owners. These consumers might be forgiven for thinking a
> K&N
> air filter is a logical investment over, say, an exhaust upgrade, Dollar
> for
> Dollar, based on your rather vague advertising claims. For example, I
> found
> 23 hp from a $100 exhaust upgrade and 1 hp from a $45 K&N cone filter.
> To be
> fair, the exhaust upgrade was purchased used and retails for
> approximately
> $300, but on a (corrected) $/HP basis, I spent $13 per horsepower on the
> exhaust and $45 per horsepower on the filter. Would you care to comment
> on
> these unscientific findings and provide scientific evidence to the
> contrary,
> or do you acknowledge that the results are fairly typical of a K&N
> filter
> modification on similar vehicles?
>
> While I respect the detail of your reply with respect to the filtering
> controversy, your credibility would suffer, in my opinion, from a less
> detailed response to the horsepower issue.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Blake Qualley
> [email protected]
>
> Blum, Richard wrote:
>
> > Dear sir,
> >
> > What you have posted is 100% false and misleading. It has been
> > around
> for
> > years and has no facts to back it up. Foremost, K&N does not make a
> filter
> > for a Cummins, V-12 or any earthmoving or mining equipment. That
> > immediately shows it is untrue.
> >
> > Our filters are tested by an outside, independent laboratory. They
> have
> been
> > proven to stop at least 99% of particles on a SAE dust test. This
> > test
> uses
> > particles as low as the 0 - 5 micron range and goes up to 20
> > microns.
> For
> > comparison, a paper filter also stops 99% on the same test and the
> > OEM minimum standard is 96%. Foam is generally the worst media with
> > a
> typical
> > efficiency rating of 75 - 85%. To get higher ratings, the foam must
> > be
> more
> > dense and therefore way more restrictive. The "tack" characteristic
> > of
> a
> K&N
> > allows for increase filtration without loss of flow as well.
> >
> > The testing procedure used is SAE J-726 using ISO Test Dust. This
> > test
> is
> > the standard of the air filter industry. The test procedure consists
> of
> > flowing air through the filter at a constant rate (airflow rate is
> > determined by the application) while feeding test dust into the air
> stream
> > at a rate of 1 gram per cubic meter of air.
> >
> > As the filter loads with dust the pressure drop across the filter is
> > increased to maintain the prescribed airflow rate. The test is
> continued
> > until the pressure drop increases 10" H2O above the initial
> restriction of
> > the clean element (in this case .78" to 10.78" H2O). At this point
> > the
> test
> > is terminated. The dirty filter element is then weighed. This weight
> is
> > compared to the clean element weight to determine the total Dust
> Capacity.
> > The amount of dust retained by the filter is divided by the total
> amount
> of
> > dust fed during the test to determine the Cumulative Efficiency.
> >
> > The K&N filter achieved the following results:
> >
> > Dust Capacity: 305 grams
> >
> > K&N Cumulative Efficiency: 99.05 %
> >
> > K&N Initial Pass Efficiency: 97.11 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Cumulative: 99.29 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Initial Pass: 96.47 %
> >
> > Holding the filter to the light is useless, pin holes are normal.
> > That
> is
> > what makes a K&N filter. There are actually dozens of microscopic
> fibers
> > that cross these holes that when treated with oil become somewhat
> > transparent but still capture and hold the very fine particles.
> > Spray
> WD-40
> > on a piece of paper and it will be transparent too. On the same
> > hand,
> they
> > allow the filter to flow more air than paper or foam. The filter is
> > 4
> ply
> > cotton gauze unlike some competitors synthetic material filters. The
> > synthetics do not have the very small fibers that natural cotton
> > does.
> Also,
> > the oil can be pulled off of a foam filter contaminating electronic
> sensors.
> > It will absorb into cotton and stay in the media.
> >
> > We got started over 30 years ago making filters for motorcycles and
> off
> road
> > racers. The filters did so well that these guys wanted them for
> > their
> cars
> > and trucks. We started making filters for these applications and
> > here
> we
> are
> > today. If they did not work, we would not still be here and growing
> every
> > year.
> >
> > We now make filters for Chrysler/Mopar, Ford Motorsports, Edelbrock,
> Rotax
> > Engines, and Harley Davidson. We come as original equipment on the
> 2000
> Ford
> > Mustang Cobra-R. We even made filters for the Apache helicopters
> > used
> in
> > Desert Storm and Iraq because of maintenance problems with the
> original
> > paper design. Now we are on the new unmanned Predator plane being
> > used
> in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq. If they work in these conditions they will
> > work
> for
> > you. Links to the filtration tests are on our web site at
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab1.gif and
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
> >
> > Thanks for writing, Rick
> --
> Send mail for the `rx7' list to `[email protected]'.
> Mail subscription commands to `[email protected]'.
> List archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rx-7
[ April 26, 2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: joee12 ]
> Actually, they shouldn't be running that ad any more. We sell to a lot of exhaust and turbo distributors and manufacturers and we did not want to upset them. The new TV ads involve our race teams and opera music (don't
ask). Also, we no longer advertise "up to" horsepower any more. We actually only publish averages. We have dynos here and only publish once 7 like vehicles are tested; dropping the highest and lowest and averaging the middle 5. For instance, we make a Typhoon Intake System for a WRX. We say it makes 11 HP at the wheels (yes we have a 4 whl dyno) or a 6% increase. However, one of the vehicles we tested made 20 HP and one made only 8 HP. The rest were all around 11 HP though. One would think all vehicles are the
same but in reality they are not even close. That is why we average.It gives a more realistic "real world" representation. The claim of "up to 25 HP" is valid though but was done on a Viper which has a huge baseline starting point. Here is what you can honestly expect. On average, a K&N drop-in replacement filter gives a 2 - 4 % increase and a K&N intake system a 5 - 7 % HP gain. Do not confuse another company's tube with one of our filters hung on the end as a K&N system though. We have no control on how
they might or might not perform. There are some applications which one simply cannot improve upon (BMW a good example) and for these, we do not
> offer intake systems for. They can buy are reusable replacement filter and
perhaps pick up a couple ponies but no kit will be offered. K&N is big time into integrity which we feel is what really sets us apart from our competitors.
Richard Blum
Program Manager
K&N Engineering, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blake Qualley [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:15 PM
> To: Blum, Richard; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: (rx7) RE: [Datalogit-FD3S] (all) Tech Study on K&N's
> --NOT GOOD !!
>
>
> Mr. Blum,
>
> Thank you for the reply. I'm sure I speak for many who also appreciate
> your input. However, I think we would appreciate your further input on
> the matter
> of horsepower claims made by K&N. I specifically refer to those
> advertisements in magazines and the spots on Speed Channel. These ads
> promise "up to" certain horsepower gains from simply replacing the
> filter
> and further claim that the effectiveness is on par or even more
> significant
> than replacing the exhaust or performing other "expensive"
> modifications,
> only for a fraction of the cost. Please tell me what the test vehicles
> were,
> the test conditions, and other details, as you have so appropriately
> done in
> debunking the filtering issue. Further, I would be interested on what
> claims
> K&N has made, or might wish to make, with respect to the rotary engine
> in
> general and certain RX-7 models in particular. This is very important to
> establishing your credibility as the horsepower claims, in my opinion,
> do
> not seem to remotely reflect reality in any car I have owned and tested.
> I
> have before and after dyno charts of my own vehicle showing 1 hp (cone
> replacement of air box), while another list member only documented 0.3
> hp
> improvement (drop-in stock filter replacement, IIRC). Obviously these
> were
> not "test conditions" so there are issues of validity, but they are
> "real
> world" tests by end-use customers who might like to know where the big
> gains
> are to be found. While I am not disappointed with any improvement, I
> question the appropriateness of larger claims made by your company, in
> the
> absence of supporting evidence, which might effectively prove misleading
> to
> other rotary owners. These consumers might be forgiven for thinking a
> K&N
> air filter is a logical investment over, say, an exhaust upgrade, Dollar
> for
> Dollar, based on your rather vague advertising claims. For example, I
> found
> 23 hp from a $100 exhaust upgrade and 1 hp from a $45 K&N cone filter.
> To be
> fair, the exhaust upgrade was purchased used and retails for
> approximately
> $300, but on a (corrected) $/HP basis, I spent $13 per horsepower on the
> exhaust and $45 per horsepower on the filter. Would you care to comment
> on
> these unscientific findings and provide scientific evidence to the
> contrary,
> or do you acknowledge that the results are fairly typical of a K&N
> filter
> modification on similar vehicles?
>
> While I respect the detail of your reply with respect to the filtering
> controversy, your credibility would suffer, in my opinion, from a less
> detailed response to the horsepower issue.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Blake Qualley
> [email protected]
>
> Blum, Richard wrote:
>
> > Dear sir,
> >
> > What you have posted is 100% false and misleading. It has been
> > around
> for
> > years and has no facts to back it up. Foremost, K&N does not make a
> filter
> > for a Cummins, V-12 or any earthmoving or mining equipment. That
> > immediately shows it is untrue.
> >
> > Our filters are tested by an outside, independent laboratory. They
> have
> been
> > proven to stop at least 99% of particles on a SAE dust test. This
> > test
> uses
> > particles as low as the 0 - 5 micron range and goes up to 20
> > microns.
> For
> > comparison, a paper filter also stops 99% on the same test and the
> > OEM minimum standard is 96%. Foam is generally the worst media with
> > a
> typical
> > efficiency rating of 75 - 85%. To get higher ratings, the foam must
> > be
> more
> > dense and therefore way more restrictive. The "tack" characteristic
> > of
> a
> K&N
> > allows for increase filtration without loss of flow as well.
> >
> > The testing procedure used is SAE J-726 using ISO Test Dust. This
> > test
> is
> > the standard of the air filter industry. The test procedure consists
> of
> > flowing air through the filter at a constant rate (airflow rate is
> > determined by the application) while feeding test dust into the air
> stream
> > at a rate of 1 gram per cubic meter of air.
> >
> > As the filter loads with dust the pressure drop across the filter is
> > increased to maintain the prescribed airflow rate. The test is
> continued
> > until the pressure drop increases 10" H2O above the initial
> restriction of
> > the clean element (in this case .78" to 10.78" H2O). At this point
> > the
> test
> > is terminated. The dirty filter element is then weighed. This weight
> is
> > compared to the clean element weight to determine the total Dust
> Capacity.
> > The amount of dust retained by the filter is divided by the total
> amount
> of
> > dust fed during the test to determine the Cumulative Efficiency.
> >
> > The K&N filter achieved the following results:
> >
> > Dust Capacity: 305 grams
> >
> > K&N Cumulative Efficiency: 99.05 %
> >
> > K&N Initial Pass Efficiency: 97.11 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Cumulative: 99.29 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Initial Pass: 96.47 %
> >
> > Holding the filter to the light is useless, pin holes are normal.
> > That
> is
> > what makes a K&N filter. There are actually dozens of microscopic
> fibers
> > that cross these holes that when treated with oil become somewhat
> > transparent but still capture and hold the very fine particles.
> > Spray
> WD-40
> > on a piece of paper and it will be transparent too. On the same
> > hand,
> they
> > allow the filter to flow more air than paper or foam. The filter is
> > 4
> ply
> > cotton gauze unlike some competitors synthetic material filters. The
> > synthetics do not have the very small fibers that natural cotton
> > does.
> Also,
> > the oil can be pulled off of a foam filter contaminating electronic
> sensors.
> > It will absorb into cotton and stay in the media.
> >
> > We got started over 30 years ago making filters for motorcycles and
> off
> road
> > racers. The filters did so well that these guys wanted them for
> > their
> cars
> > and trucks. We started making filters for these applications and
> > here
> we
> are
> > today. If they did not work, we would not still be here and growing
> every
> > year.
> >
> > We now make filters for Chrysler/Mopar, Ford Motorsports, Edelbrock,
> Rotax
> > Engines, and Harley Davidson. We come as original equipment on the
> 2000
> Ford
> > Mustang Cobra-R. We even made filters for the Apache helicopters
> > used
> in
> > Desert Storm and Iraq because of maintenance problems with the
> original
> > paper design. Now we are on the new unmanned Predator plane being
> > used
> in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq. If they work in these conditions they will
> > work
> for
> > you. Links to the filtration tests are on our web site at
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab1.gif and
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
> >
> > Thanks for writing, Rick
> --
> Send mail for the `rx7' list to `[email protected]'.
> Mail subscription commands to `[email protected]'.
> List archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rx-7
[ April 26, 2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: joee12 ]
Gerhard, I cleaned up the email from K&N to make it easier for everyone to read. Thanks for the post, Joe
- Status
