Not according to many before and after changing just the air filter dyno tests (some posted in this thread). Dropping in a K&N in a modern fuel injected car typically does give a few more HP at WOT. Is it worth it for a bit less filtratrion efficiency? Guess that's up to the person who owns the vehicle.
Keep K&N or NOT ?
- Thread starter SubeeTedII
- Start date
- Status
Not according to many before and after changing just the air filter dyno tests (some posted in this thread). Dropping in a K&N in a modern fuel injected car typically does give a few more HP at WOT. Is it worth it for a bit less filtratrion efficiency? Guess that's up to the person who owns the vehicle.
Exactly, some look for better filtration for longer engine life, includes oil and air, some look for performance. We all agree that K&N and similar filters are less efficient at filtering then standard paper.
The average person would never be able to tell the difference if the only change made is switching from OEM to KN. If they did notice a difference, that difference could also be a hit on performance.
Also, the word "typically" gives a few more HP is used way to easy and is more marketing then reality on stock engines..
"longer engine life" from using a paper filter vs. K&N is never substantiated in these discussions.
I highly doubt any car with a stock intake setup is going to lose HP if a K&N filter is dropped into the stock box. It may not make any more HP if the intake downstream is the choke point, or so little of an increase that it's hardly measurable, but it's certainly not going to lose HP because the filter flows better (meaning less delta-p with flow).
I never said lose horsepower, I did bring up "hit on performanace" meaning low end torque but I doubt that would happen, so we kind of agree but I cant be 100% sure on that. Changing exhaust will reduce torque. HP and Torque two different animals.
My point is, do we go to a device that lets more sand and dust into our engine for performance increase that does not exist, except possibly increasing engine wear, which is the point of having an air filter ...
So by installing a less efficient air filter, we are saying, we know better then the engine maker that letting more dirt and air into the engine will increase performance, which is BS because the engine was designed with a large enough air filter to let the air in to begin with.
(not debating, stating the reason for my post)
Back when mount st helens blew, there was a fram filter with a foam prefilter on it. They became very popular because that prefitler caught a lot of the coarse dust, could be removed washed and lighlty oiled. The paper filter behind caught only the fine stuff, they lasted longer
I and many other used them, now you cant get them.
I did notice years later that AC branded air filters got dirty quicker. Quarter mile ET was also slightly better with them. They were oiled paper. I have personally seen dirt in the intake using K&N, I will not use them now. I need air filters on the fleet again, so I guess I better over over to the filtration forums.
Rod
I and many other used them, now you cant get them.
I did notice years later that AC branded air filters got dirty quicker. Quarter mile ET was also slightly better with them. They were oiled paper. I have personally seen dirt in the intake using K&N, I will not use them now. I need air filters on the fleet again, so I guess I better over over to the filtration forums.
Rod
If an engine loses low end torque, then it's also losing low end HP (or simply HP) since HP and torque are directly dependent on each other per Mr. Watt's HP equation. People don't use K&N or similar high flow filters for "low end" power increase, but rather for a high RPM HP increase where the biggest gain is seen.
I've always said that people will use a less restrictive air filter (like a K&N) to achieve a slight HP increase at WOT at the expense of less efficient air filtration, and possible increased engine wear. I think pretty much everyone reading this thread can agree on that. I'm just saying that any time more air per cylinder charge is present due to less intake system restriction, and with the proper fuel mixture, there will be a slight power increase - and that's been proven many times with dyno tests done back-to-back with an OEM vs a performance drop-in filter.
Last edited:
I think we are talking in circles because of “words” I don’t disagree with your statement because of your mention of possible” increase of wear” and “proper fuel mixture”.
Some O2 sensors do not have a wide range allowing for much change in the fuel air ratio = narrow band sensors.
It’s all good, I don’t disagree but don’t think a blanket statement will cover all vehicles, maybe it does, who knows but think there is validity in the video presented a few posts back showing results on a dyno with no change for the good.
I’m not talking about her car enthusiast, two may even reflash the computer or add a processor on, I’m just talking about the average Joe who may go to the store and purchase one of these things with the hopes of a significant increase in power. This is the video I was referring to
Keep K&N or NOT ?
Almost all my cars are carb lol but just from my experience they are better than just a paper one. What type of oil would a filter have in it is my question. You're supposed to oil the air filter every once in a while. Typically people use too much and it gets on the MAF...
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
Still kickin' the can, eh?
Before I'd install a gravel screen for a wee bit more top-end, I'd pony up for E-free 93 all the time instead of supplementing E up to 10% 93 on Mondays for the price of mid-grade.
And, that extra power is only felt in your head. Not even close to the diff in summer/winter blend.
If you do not wish to sacrifice performance for protection get off your lazy arse and fabricate another proper filter for those few corralled ponies you envision at top-end.
Or, continue to slowly scrub your inner engine applying the tried & true K&N automatic piston skirt & cylinder honing treatment.
Before I'd install a gravel screen for a wee bit more top-end, I'd pony up for E-free 93 all the time instead of supplementing E up to 10% 93 on Mondays for the price of mid-grade.
And, that extra power is only felt in your head. Not even close to the diff in summer/winter blend.
If you do not wish to sacrifice performance for protection get off your lazy arse and fabricate another proper filter for those few corralled ponies you envision at top-end.
Or, continue to slowly scrub your inner engine applying the tried & true K&N automatic piston skirt & cylinder honing treatment.
E free 93...why? Give me E30 for more powa' all day every day. My car loves it for all that sweet sweet timing advance.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Flared up again
In before lock.
In this neck off the woods fuel options are limited. Plus, I do not have a tune that would allow the engine to take full advantage of E30 over E free 93. The only variable for me is how much ethanol in the up to 10% 93E offering. Sometimes after running E free I note a MPG hit after pumping 93E and sometimes there's no diff. So, the ethanol content changes for whatever reason the refinery sees fit as long as they do not exceed 10% by volume.
The wideband O2 sensor would have no issues nor the injectors and especially in the heat of the summer my TDI engine would benefit from the greater cooling ability of E30. Just not so much on limited timing advance available.
The wideband O2 sensor would have no issues nor the injectors and especially in the heat of the summer my TDI engine would benefit from the greater cooling ability of E30. Just not so much on limited timing advance available.
kn air filters suck to be honest. the oil filters are good. and whatever you save on gas you spend on getting an expensive air filter and having to buy that rather pricy oil you have to use. no thanks. and on top of that they just dont filter well compared to regular filters so you're contaminating your sump. more and that wears the engine faster.
Never had the need to go the kn route.. paper oe style element always done the job.
I was tempted to get a K&N air intake system for the 2011 Ford Ranger I just bought. Used K&N air filters before on other cars with no issues. After reading all the pages of this thread, I think I'll stick with the stock intake and paper filter.
A fellow poster on a Ranger forum had the same advice: nothing wrong with the stock system.
Something no one brought up on this thread so far: according to other BITOG threads, K&N oil filters have dropped in quality since production went overseas. Is one of today's K&N air filters equal in quality to one from years ago? Or was that production farmed out overseas and made more cheaply too?
A fellow poster on a Ranger forum had the same advice: nothing wrong with the stock system.
Something no one brought up on this thread so far: according to other BITOG threads, K&N oil filters have dropped in quality since production went overseas. Is one of today's K&N air filters equal in quality to one from years ago? Or was that production farmed out overseas and made more cheaply too?
This is so odd to me/bummer.
The math doesn't support your comment. A filter cleaning kit should last the life of the car and is about $15. So add that to your filter price compared to throw-aways. On my vehicles with drop-in K&Ns, it's a 50K cleaning cycle so the kit will last "forever". UOA data doesn't support that these are "contaminating" my sump on the cars I have that I run them on/do UOAs.
Edit - to make sure, yes, I understand that a K&N does not have the same filtering efficiency as a stock paper filter..."duh".
Last edited:
- Status
