People's opinions on K&N
- Thread starter lght1
- Start date
- Status
I personally have been conducting an air filter test using a manometer for pressure drops (flow potential) and a secondary filter to catch particles that get through the primary filter. There are ways the test could've been improved, but I don't have the time or desire to do another 5000 miles of testing. I tested two of the filters for filtration twice to verify repeatability of the test. It is pretty good.
Anyway, there are 3 major types of filters; cotton gauze, paper (other fiberous too like fiberglass), and foam. I tested a K&N, Amsoil, another foam filter, a Mazda OEM replacement, a Napa paper filter, and a Baldwin filter. I need to do some more flow testing tomorrow. I need to find an assistant to do it, which won't be too hard. I'll probably update the website Sunday and have all the data up.
The K&N did indeed flow the best (so far). I do have high hopes for the Baldwin. The Napa paper flowed the worst. In a 500 mile filtration test, the K&N and foam designs were noticeably worse than paper or fiber type filters. K&N even sent me an e-mail, claiming it was from an engineer, to tell me their side of things. K&N claims their filters are 99% as good as OEM. 1% may not sound like much, but multiplied by thousands of miles, it can really add up.
That said, the only Ford a K&N was ever OEM on was the 2000 Cobra R. This is a car sold as is with no warranty written or implied. It is sold to people possessing racing licenses as well. No warranty doesn't say much for Ford's faith in K&N to me.
I've used multiple K&Ns in the past. I will not be using them in the future. My friend with a low 12 sec LS1 Camaro found zero hp on the dyno using a K&N.
If an air filter is sized properly for the application, a K&N will net you nothing in the power department. If your filter is undersized, it will probably help. Paper is cheap and replaceable. The purpose of an air filter is to remove dirt not generate power. Power is generated by turbos, nitrous, cams, better exhaust systems, etc.
Oh yes, my test page is..
http://www.mcagraphix.com/filter/test.htm
I have lots of pictures of the Baldwin, Mazda and retest filters not on the site. I'll get more flow data soon and update the page. I won't be doing any further testing. I will happily donate my filters to anyone that wants to conduct testing of their own as long as they share the results. I will gladly provide all of my filters to the testing facility of my choice should someone be willing to fund an SAE standard test. I don't want K&N or anyone sending the filter to the firm as proof to me. I want to send the filters, and watch the testing in person. I will only accept an SAE test done with off the shelf filters that I buy. I'm pretty certain most companies send their best filters in for filtration testing, and their best other filters in for flow testing. The Amsoil filter I tested didn't flow or filter very well which surprised me. I figured it'd filter well at least.
Anyway, there are 3 major types of filters; cotton gauze, paper (other fiberous too like fiberglass), and foam. I tested a K&N, Amsoil, another foam filter, a Mazda OEM replacement, a Napa paper filter, and a Baldwin filter. I need to do some more flow testing tomorrow. I need to find an assistant to do it, which won't be too hard. I'll probably update the website Sunday and have all the data up.
The K&N did indeed flow the best (so far). I do have high hopes for the Baldwin. The Napa paper flowed the worst. In a 500 mile filtration test, the K&N and foam designs were noticeably worse than paper or fiber type filters. K&N even sent me an e-mail, claiming it was from an engineer, to tell me their side of things. K&N claims their filters are 99% as good as OEM. 1% may not sound like much, but multiplied by thousands of miles, it can really add up.
That said, the only Ford a K&N was ever OEM on was the 2000 Cobra R. This is a car sold as is with no warranty written or implied. It is sold to people possessing racing licenses as well. No warranty doesn't say much for Ford's faith in K&N to me.
I've used multiple K&Ns in the past. I will not be using them in the future. My friend with a low 12 sec LS1 Camaro found zero hp on the dyno using a K&N.
If an air filter is sized properly for the application, a K&N will net you nothing in the power department. If your filter is undersized, it will probably help. Paper is cheap and replaceable. The purpose of an air filter is to remove dirt not generate power. Power is generated by turbos, nitrous, cams, better exhaust systems, etc.
Oh yes, my test page is..
http://www.mcagraphix.com/filter/test.htm
I have lots of pictures of the Baldwin, Mazda and retest filters not on the site. I'll get more flow data soon and update the page. I won't be doing any further testing. I will happily donate my filters to anyone that wants to conduct testing of their own as long as they share the results. I will gladly provide all of my filters to the testing facility of my choice should someone be willing to fund an SAE standard test. I don't want K&N or anyone sending the filter to the firm as proof to me. I want to send the filters, and watch the testing in person. I will only accept an SAE test done with off the shelf filters that I buy. I'm pretty certain most companies send their best filters in for filtration testing, and their best other filters in for flow testing. The Amsoil filter I tested didn't flow or filter very well which surprised me. I figured it'd filter well at least.
Anthony,
I just finished reading with great interest your link on air filtration testing you've done. Excellent job! I haven't been following air filtration topics so this is the first time I've even seen anything of this sort. I really like the way you conducted your tests and shows some very interesting results.
Several points I'd like to point out.. On my travels around mechanic shops, I've run into a couple of people, one that is an ase master toyota mechanic, who did a little experiment but nothing like yours. He just changed out filters to see if he could tell any differences, and going along with what you're saying, K&N allowed for more air flow, is where he did find a difference in his truck. He was hearing a slight rattle from the ignition knock or pinging, but after putting on the k&N, it went completely away. This leads me to believe that it was allowing for more air flow into the cyl's.
The other thing is if you follow these UOA, I myself have seen evidence that the K&N does appear to allow more dirt to pass as seen in the SI readings on many reports. Myself, I've been using a fram air filter(paper) from day 1 since I've had the car at 70k miles, and in all of my oil analysis, I've not yet had an Si reading of 10, even after running over 10,000 miles on the oil. The average Si reading has been 6.3 over 27484 miles of driving in all conditions from texas to va to fl. So, IMO, I'm with you on paper filters being the best for a good balance of air flow/air filtration.
I've got some other questions not related to the test itself I'm going to Pm you on.
Thanks for the great info provided. Bob
I just finished reading with great interest your link on air filtration testing you've done. Excellent job! I haven't been following air filtration topics so this is the first time I've even seen anything of this sort. I really like the way you conducted your tests and shows some very interesting results.
Several points I'd like to point out.. On my travels around mechanic shops, I've run into a couple of people, one that is an ase master toyota mechanic, who did a little experiment but nothing like yours. He just changed out filters to see if he could tell any differences, and going along with what you're saying, K&N allowed for more air flow, is where he did find a difference in his truck. He was hearing a slight rattle from the ignition knock or pinging, but after putting on the k&N, it went completely away. This leads me to believe that it was allowing for more air flow into the cyl's.
The other thing is if you follow these UOA, I myself have seen evidence that the K&N does appear to allow more dirt to pass as seen in the SI readings on many reports. Myself, I've been using a fram air filter(paper) from day 1 since I've had the car at 70k miles, and in all of my oil analysis, I've not yet had an Si reading of 10, even after running over 10,000 miles on the oil. The average Si reading has been 6.3 over 27484 miles of driving in all conditions from texas to va to fl. So, IMO, I'm with you on paper filters being the best for a good balance of air flow/air filtration.
I've got some other questions not related to the test itself I'm going to Pm you on.
Thanks for the great info provided. Bob
AnthonyS: so you are the one who conducted that study. first off i say thank you for sheading some light. i tried to email you, but i never got a response, i bet my email was bogus for some reason.
i would be really interested in the other filter tests. especially baldwins. it takes a real dedicated person to actually sit down and take his time to conduct a study like this. im not one of them obviously =).
i would be really interested in the other filter tests. especially baldwins. it takes a real dedicated person to actually sit down and take his time to conduct a study like this. im not one of them obviously =).
digitaldrifter, I actually have all the e-mails saved. I've been waiting to update the site before sending replies. I have been real busy in grad school, work, and running a small business. I will get the site updated this week and the final flow testing done. I have the filters and test rig ready to do the last flow testing today or tomorrow.
After that, I will totally redo the webpage. It's going to be 3 pages actually. There will be an intro and conclusions page including basis for the testing and limitations of the testing. I will also have links to other interesting tests I have found on the web at the bottom of the page. The 2nd page will be the filtration comparisons with lots more pictures of the test filters. The last page will be all of the pressure drop data. I'm also going to find out how much the stock air box loss is with no air filter, so I can determine how many psi pressure drop are actually due to the filter. I really hate to do that to such a good running engine, but I guess its for a good cause.
I also have to reply to someone claiming to be an "engineer" from K&N. Personally, I think its just a marketing person. We'll see. I may put the e-mail they sent me along with my response to the e-mail up on a seperate page. I will of course include all other communications. I found their e-mail to me to be contradictory on two counts. One I've already mentioned and that is the use of the filter as OEM by Ford. The only vehicle it was ever offered it had absolutely no warranty whatsoever, which was the 2000 Cobra R.
After that, I will totally redo the webpage. It's going to be 3 pages actually. There will be an intro and conclusions page including basis for the testing and limitations of the testing. I will also have links to other interesting tests I have found on the web at the bottom of the page. The 2nd page will be the filtration comparisons with lots more pictures of the test filters. The last page will be all of the pressure drop data. I'm also going to find out how much the stock air box loss is with no air filter, so I can determine how many psi pressure drop are actually due to the filter. I really hate to do that to such a good running engine, but I guess its for a good cause.
I also have to reply to someone claiming to be an "engineer" from K&N. Personally, I think its just a marketing person. We'll see. I may put the e-mail they sent me along with my response to the e-mail up on a seperate page. I will of course include all other communications. I found their e-mail to me to be contradictory on two counts. One I've already mentioned and that is the use of the filter as OEM by Ford. The only vehicle it was ever offered it had absolutely no warranty whatsoever, which was the 2000 Cobra R.
That test is very interesting, and hats off to you for attempting a comparison test as that....Pretty cool if you ask me. However, I have used KN air filters in Almost every vehicle I have owned for the last 15 years. I have never noticed any dirt on the load side of the filter, and have never noticed my oil getting dirty any faster. I have never done a UOA so maybe it does have an effect on the silicon in the oil. I think the real question is: Does using a KN filter promote excessive wear or early engine failure. I have never had a mechanical problem with any of my vehicles (that could be related to the air filter in any way). I have never had a problem with the MAF sensors, None of my engines ever used oil and some of them survived to 200000 miles and still ran just fine. I can easily believe that a KN does not filter as well as paper. I am just not yet convinced that the KN does not filter "well enough".
sbc350, you are correct. I don't know if the dirt getting through a K&N actually hurts anything. No one can actually quantify how it affects engine life or even if it does. That would likely require billions of miles in testing on several different autos.
I've personally owned vehicles with 280K, and 450K miles on them, and a couple over 100K. I've rebuilt lots of engines too. I've never seen a failure I could say wow, this was caused by a filter or brand of oil as of yet. It doesn't mean that I still don't want to use the best ones I can get though. Make sense?
In the end everyone has to decide which filter is right for them and their driving. If you are going for every last ounce of power, than you want the best flowing filter. If you want everything to stay as clean as possible, you want the best filtering one. I can't pick filters for anyone only let them know what I found out in my very small real world test. I would do more testing, but time and finances preclude it as well as my own desire to modify my car. Maybe I'll do a longer test in the future on a more mundane vehicle like an SUV or pickup (family mover or parts hauler).
Anyway, I finished the flow data and rewrote the pages today. I am done now, or at least for the next few years.
I've personally owned vehicles with 280K, and 450K miles on them, and a couple over 100K. I've rebuilt lots of engines too. I've never seen a failure I could say wow, this was caused by a filter or brand of oil as of yet. It doesn't mean that I still don't want to use the best ones I can get though. Make sense?
In the end everyone has to decide which filter is right for them and their driving. If you are going for every last ounce of power, than you want the best flowing filter. If you want everything to stay as clean as possible, you want the best filtering one. I can't pick filters for anyone only let them know what I found out in my very small real world test. I would do more testing, but time and finances preclude it as well as my own desire to modify my car. Maybe I'll do a longer test in the future on a more mundane vehicle like an SUV or pickup (family mover or parts hauler).
Anyway, I finished the flow data and rewrote the pages today. I am done now, or at least for the next few years.
anthony....a couple questions from reading your page...
1) what was the material used for the 'post' filter, im sure u mentioend it, i just didnt see it
2) did u ever have that analyzed to see what the heck it is you guys breathe up there??? talk about black lung!
I used a cut up off the shelf Fram filter. It was cheap.
I haven't had it analysed yet, but someone is offering to have it done. Once I get his address, the filters belong to him, and I will post the finding whatever they are. I get the same color dirt on my white wheels, and my wife gets it on her silver wheels. The dirt up here is black. The environment is actually very clean where I live, at least I think it is
.
I haven't had it analysed yet, but someone is offering to have it done. Once I get his address, the filters belong to him, and I will post the finding whatever they are. I get the same color dirt on my white wheels, and my wife gets it on her silver wheels. The dirt up here is black. The environment is actually very clean where I live, at least I think it is
Thanks for the time and effort. A good informative read.
Along with Quaddriver, I, too, am wondering about the amount of airborne soil. Did I miss the info, or was this done at a time of year when agricultural prep work was being done in your region?
Again, thanks for the trouble.
Along with Quaddriver, I, too, am wondering about the amount of airborne soil. Did I miss the info, or was this done at a time of year when agricultural prep work was being done in your region?
Again, thanks for the trouble.
There is never any agricultural work in my area of the country.
This a first time post for me on this forum. I am dropping this bit of change as a way of getting acquainted.
FWIW, I have had good experiences with drop in K & N air filters. My last truck, a F250, 6.9 with an ATS turbo went 200000 miles using a K & N. That filter was serviced at each 100000 miles. I cannot say that it enhanced performance beyond the feeling that all just seemed to run a little better with the K & N. The power curve on the 6.9s is a little lacking so a performance change was difficult to determine.
My now F150, 4.6L has had a drop in K & N for the past 5000 miles and yesterday at oil change while cleaning the MAF and throttle body, the intake between the filter and the TB was absolutely free of dust. It was completely clean to the eye. The 4.6L does show a noticeable increase in throttle response and mid-range torque with the K & N that was not there with the OEM filter. This could be because the 4.6 may be on the verge of being a bit light in the mid-range to begin with and very little change is needed to experience improvement. For whatever reason, it is some stronger with the K & N.
I am enjoying the forum. Thank you all for allowing me to participate.
George
FWIW, I have had good experiences with drop in K & N air filters. My last truck, a F250, 6.9 with an ATS turbo went 200000 miles using a K & N. That filter was serviced at each 100000 miles. I cannot say that it enhanced performance beyond the feeling that all just seemed to run a little better with the K & N. The power curve on the 6.9s is a little lacking so a performance change was difficult to determine.
My now F150, 4.6L has had a drop in K & N for the past 5000 miles and yesterday at oil change while cleaning the MAF and throttle body, the intake between the filter and the TB was absolutely free of dust. It was completely clean to the eye. The 4.6L does show a noticeable increase in throttle response and mid-range torque with the K & N that was not there with the OEM filter. This could be because the 4.6 may be on the verge of being a bit light in the mid-range to begin with and very little change is needed to experience improvement. For whatever reason, it is some stronger with the K & N.
I am enjoying the forum. Thank you all for allowing me to participate.
George
Ron-
As far as K&N destroying MAFSs, yes they *could* possibly if over-oiled (even then you can clean them).
PUT SIMPLY:
A filter that filters out all dust and dirt = A PLUG!
As far as K&N destroying MAFSs, yes they *could* possibly if over-oiled (even then you can clean them).
PUT SIMPLY:
A filter that filters out all dust and dirt = A PLUG!
The Cummins website Dodge link has specific reference to high air flow filters, namely K&N filters in the FAQ. Cummins states that their experience is that such filters like the K&N filter allow enough stuff through to score pistons.
One assumes, since they mention specifically the brand, that they have an evidentiary basis for such a claim.
Just a caution for the cautious. No remarks about airflow, simply piston scoring.
Although Cummins doesn't warrant the Dodge Cummins, they say in the FAQ that DC and Cummins do not allow such filters.
It may be argued that they simply want to sell their filters, but a specific claim was made pertaining to a named manufacturer and in today's tort climate one assumes they are prepared to go to court.
One assumes, since they mention specifically the brand, that they have an evidentiary basis for such a claim.
Just a caution for the cautious. No remarks about airflow, simply piston scoring.
Although Cummins doesn't warrant the Dodge Cummins, they say in the FAQ that DC and Cummins do not allow such filters.
It may be argued that they simply want to sell their filters, but a specific claim was made pertaining to a named manufacturer and in today's tort climate one assumes they are prepared to go to court.
Is it possible that the problem is with forced induction engines, such as the cummins turbodiesals?
The thing that bothers me about K&N air filters is that you can see right through them. If I can see through them, then how can they filter very well.
The TRD (Toyota Racing Development) recleanable air filter that I use on my Tacoma, appears to be a lot better quality that the K&N.
The TRD (Toyota Racing Development) recleanable air filter that I use on my Tacoma, appears to be a lot better quality that the K&N.
I can see right through glass and plastic wrap, but I'm pretty sure they'd block 100% of the airflow if you put them across your intake.
Seriously, any material you use for an air filter must be porous... whether you can see through it does not seem to be a scientific test of its ability to filter or to flow.
[ September 02, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: MRC01 ]
This is my experience too. I've been using K&N filters for 20+ years and while they may not filter as well as paper, they seem to filter well enough. I have one vehicle over 200K miles with no problems and the recent oil analysis on another showed no problems...
If you compare a stock disposible filter vs. a K&N, you'll be able to see through the K&N while w/the stock one, you can't. Granted, that explains for the the better air flow of the K&N, but not for it's filtration. The bigger the pores, the bigger the dirt particles that can go through it.
K&N- Better air flow, less filtration, recleanable.
Stock Filter- Less flow, better filtration, disposable.
I went for the TRD (Toyota Racing Development) because it appears to be a better quality filter than the K&N. It's not as porus, which I'm sure effects the air flow, and recleanable. Plus if there should be any problems w/my engine, it shouldn't effect my warranty w/Toyota.
- Status
