Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Too much oil WILL be sucked into the intak tract, and it WILL fould the MAF sensor.
K&N says different and offers up a lot of evidence to support it's position. Can you or anyone else offer up evidence of similar weight that proves different? I haven't been able to find anything substantive. Most people haven't looked at K&N's material on the subject here:
Oil and MAF.
How about me? I had a K&N drop-in filter in my old '97 Legacy that had been over-oiled (key word OVER.) I wasn't able to log fuel trims or anything else, but decided to clean the MAF while trouble-shooting some hesitation issues and noticed the intake tract was coated in oil. I cleaned and re-oiled the filter properly and didn't have any other problems. I didn't have the car when the filter was initially installed (or cleaned and re-oiled,) so I don't know how much oil was present. All I know is that too much was used, it was sucked into the intake tract, fouling the MAF sensor, and after cleaning and properly oiling the filter all was well. FWIW, I ended up ditching the K&N filter for a stock filter, and didn't notice any difference in performance.
I'm not sure why you're fighting me on this, to be honest. I've stated each time that only an over-oiled filter will cause this. So, are you inferring that K&N is stating that fouling the MAF is not a concern no matter how much oil you pour onto that filter, or did you simply miss the 'over' part of the over-oil points in my posts?
It may not be big deal, but there are many people who think more is better, so I don't believe that my experience was an entirely isolated one. That, and I really don't believe that there is much, if any, benefit to filters like this. I'm a big fan of OEM-style paper filters or dry-flow-type filters. In my area, where it's not very dusty, a filter can last a very long time, as-is.
I'm not fighting at all and please forgive me if I came across that way.
I am challenging the premise of the contaminated MAF sensor from a OCG filter being the "root of evil in the world." It's in there with all the other irrational and hysterical claims (all Frams are bad, RP sucks, M1 sucks, Gp III isn't syn, thin oil is bad, thick oil is bad, yada yada).
If you've read any of my posts, you will know I am no fan of OCG filters under any brand name. My main gripe is their relatively low efficiency (which is "average" at best), so I won't use them for that reason.
With the details you gave above, you at least have some factual, real world basis to your comments on air filter oil. You saw on a test device an anomalous reading from oil in your MAF sensor. It apparently went away when you cleaned it. Seems like cause and effect to me.
My only comment would be that your experience doesn't necessarily represent the totality of the MAF world as it relates to oiled filters. I would encourage your perusal of the info K&N has on their site (linked above).
I won't repeat it all here but in one instance, they overoiled one of their filters by approximately 30 percent and then subjected that filter to as much as 1000 cfm of airflow and downstream oil migration was nonexistent. They also pointed out the many other ways oil can migrate up the intake tract.. such as via the crankcase vent system.
At the last count, they have listed nearly 400 MAFs that were sent to them because the failure was attributed to the use of K&N filters. In the cases where the MAF had actually failed (only minority of them had actually failed), none were due to filter oil. Thie was verified by doing chemical analysis and microscopic examination of the sensor wire.
They even go so far as to dip a sensor in oil, test it, and it tested fine.
They do say there are different types of sensors, some that have a cleaning cycle that burns off any oil contamination. They also say that airflow will often do the same thing, clearing the sensor of oil. I sprayed about half a can of K&N oil into the intake of my running 5.4L (filter removed but airbox in place). It bucked a little but cleared up when I stopped straying and hasn't been a problem since. That was, what, 18 months ago. I also have the means to log MAF readings and I suppose I could do so at some point and observe the results.
Anyway, read the K&N MAF info from their site, following all the links. It's a worthwhile read, even if you are skeptical. It's pretty had to legitimately dismiss unless you want to apply the irrational, "they must be lying" stance.
As to your last comment, we are in total agreement on dry filters or OEM filters. Trading increased airflow capacity, which if not often needed in a day to day schlepper, for efficiency is a bad trade.
Yea, well Fram does stink!
(Fram everything in wife's Civic)
Fight was probably the wrong word to use, and I regretted submitting that post directly afterward. I do agree that hatred for products is usually based on conjecture, not first-hand (or even second or third-hand) observations, and that an oiled filter can work just fine, like it did for me after cleaning and re-oiling the drop-in K&N I had.
The reason I turn people away from products like this, is they don't really add any value for the majority of people who are sensible enough to know the filter needs to be changed, but don't really want to maintain it afterward. If they do, I do believe the risk exists for them to disregard youtube videos, online directions, and even what's printed on the bottle, and over-oil the filter, potentially causing issues. I'm not saying that most people are incapable of following instructions, but lack of experience and understanding may result in improper application.
In the end, I don't hate K&N (or any product for that matter,) but, as you mention, there isn't really any benefit to using this type of filter, since actual filtration is what some of us are after. OEM-style filters do a pretty darned good job, cheaply.
