K&N Cool Air intake, '13 2.0L Dart

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: grampi


Like I said, prove that K&Ns contribute to premature engine wear, otherwise, go away...if they are as bad as you claim then it should be an easy task...


You obviously don't read very well.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi


Like I said, prove that K&Ns contribute to premature engine wear, otherwise, go away...if they are as bad as you claim then it should be an easy task...


You obviously don't read very well.


Neither do you...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi


I went to their website and unfortunately they don't have a vehicle application guide...


Correct, you have to look at the size of the filter and figure out what would fit in the space required. Their primary market is HD Diesel trucks, earth moving equipment....etc.
 
Originally Posted By: meep
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: MCompact
The effectiveness of a CAI depends on the individual vehicle; I picked up @24 bhp when I installed a Mazdaspeed CAI on my MS3; the 30-70 mph 3rd gear times dropped by 0.61 seconds. In contrast, a CAI makes absolutely no difference on my 1995 3er; I was lucky to pick up 12 bhp with a Turner/Conforti chip...


Times a million.

My car gets 10 of its hp from a factory modded air intake that is radically different from a regular 5.7 car. A 'snoot' will add virtually nothing but noise.

On my personal Silverado it was good for a full one mpg!


Steve--- the 1mpg on your silverado -- I assume this is from a modded factory box? do tell-- I'd be interested!

on topic--

I've done a K&N cone years ago and did end up with a very fine powder, after many thousands of miles, on the intake tract. I never had problems with MAF fouling.

I saw a dirt bike with K&N start in the morning, run all day in the dust, and have inadequate compression to start (verified by gauge) at the end of the day. had to be bored, honed, and re-piston/ringed. I loved the sound of the K&N cone in the vehicle it was in, and the throttle response was "snappier" but no gains in performance or mpg. I have had more success with insulating factory intakes and modding the airbox in cases where they'd breathe warm engine air instead of grill air.

I commend the OP for wrenching on his own ride! Even if this mod doesn't live up to the hype---- ALL of us at some point or another did a mod that didn't work out great - it's how we learn.

-M


Agreed with all points.

As for the Silverado, this is my personal truck out of my fleet. It is an 05 with the 5.3.

I purchased an AFE cold air intake for it and got an honest 1 mpg across the board with no other changes of any kind. The truck is as stock and original as can be otherwise. 135k miles and still running strong...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi


Like I said, prove that K&Ns contribute to premature engine wear, otherwise, go away...if they are as bad as you claim then it should be an easy task...


You obviously don't read very well.


Neither do you...


Such as?
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi


Like I said, prove that K&Ns contribute to premature engine wear, otherwise, go away...if they are as bad as you claim then it should be an easy task...


You obviously don't read very well.


Neither do you...


Such as?


I said prove that K&N filters cause premature engine wear or go away...you have done neither...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi

I said prove that K&N filters cause premature engine wear or go away...you have done neither...


Why would I do that when I clearly said there has been nothing to show K&N filters lead to shorter engine life? Again, you clearly cannot read very well.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi

I said prove that K&N filters cause premature engine wear or go away...you have done neither...


Why would I do that when I clearly said there has been nothing to show K&N filters lead to shorter engine life? Again, you clearly cannot read very well.


Then why are you saying they're lousy filters? If they actually were lousy, then showing evidence of excessive engine wear would be easy...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi

I said prove that K&N filters cause premature engine wear or go away...you have done neither...


Why would I do that when I clearly said there has been nothing to show K&N filters lead to shorter engine life? Again, you clearly cannot read very well.


Then why are you saying they're lousy filters? If they actually were lousy, then showing evidence of excessive engine wear would be easy...


Because there isn't a worse filter out there when it comes to...you know...filtering air entering the engine. Being the worst makes it terrible. Not sure why this is so confusing for you.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi

I said prove that K&N filters cause premature engine wear or go away...you have done neither...


Why would I do that when I clearly said there has been nothing to show K&N filters lead to shorter engine life? Again, you clearly cannot read very well.


Then why are you saying they're lousy filters? If they actually were lousy, then showing evidence of excessive engine wear would be easy...


Because there isn't a worse filter out there when it comes to...you know...filtering air entering the engine. Being the worst makes it terrible. Not sure why this is so confusing for you.

Here's someone's study on K&N and other filters

http://www.thedieselpageforums.com/tdpforum/showthread.php?t=11674
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Because there isn't a worse filter out there when it comes to...you know...filtering air entering the engine. Being the worst makes it terrible. Not sure why this is so confusing for you.


I think grampi's point is, if engine life isn't effectively worsened, then how much does it really matter? Say Person A uses the best filter out there and gets 300k miles out of his engine. And say Person B uses the worst filter out there and gets 300k miles out of his engine. In the end, what's the difference?

You want the best filter, right, to keep the most dirt out of the engine, right, so the engine will last longer, right? The very last factor is key..."so the engine will last longer". We use air filters to keep dirt out of the engine....and the ONLY reason is to extend the life of the engine. There's no national contest out there for those whose cylinder walls have the fewest scratches. Sure, you can measure dirt that a filter passes, and it might make you feel better to know that Filter A traps more than Filter B, but it's an argument of conjecture until someone can demonstrate that engine life is affected.

I suppose one can draw a parallel with engine oil here. An oil's main purpose in life is to lubricate the engine right? So why not buy the oil that does that the absolute best. You're using conventional Valvoline. A lot of other oils out there pass much higher performance standards. Why do you use Valvoline? Because it's sufficient, right? It's sufficient for the task.

And there's a direct parallel with oil filters. Some people believe that the only filter that belongs on a car is one with 99.9% efficiency at so many microns. And they're free to use those. Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota are using oil filters that are 60% efficient and, yet, their engines last just as long, if not longer, than anyone else's. The 60% efficient oil filters are sufficient for the task.

It could just be that K&N filters are sufficient for the task. Until there's a lot of evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid all discussion is only conjecture.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Because there isn't a worse filter out there when it comes to...you know...filtering air entering the engine. Being the worst makes it terrible. Not sure why this is so confusing for you.


It could just be that K&N filters are sufficient for the task. Until there's a lot of evidence to the contrary, I'm afraid all discussion is only conjecture.


You apparently missed the two previous posts of mine where I made that quite clear. There is little hard evidence showing K&N reduces engine life by a significant amount.

On the other hand, it is logical to assume dirt in your eninge isn't a good thing for engine life.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
You apparently missed the two previous posts of mine where I made that quite clear. There is little hard evidence showing K&N reduces engine life by a significant amount.


I didn't miss them. I think there's simply a difference in perspective among us. A filter that doesn't filter as well as another makes it a poorer filter. It doesn't necessarily make it a poor choice for use on a vehicle.

I'll bet there are tires out there that perform better than the ones on your car. That doesn't make your tires terrible. There are probably shoes that are more comfortable than the ones you're wearing. That doesn't make your shoes terrible. There's lunch that's likely more tasty than the one you'll have today. That doesn't make your lunch terrible. There are tradeoffs in everything. A theoretical loss in filtration of a performance filter might not affect the OP's engine life at all, and he gained a better knowledge of how his car works and probably a better appreciation for the way his engine bay was designed and packaged by installing the filter kit.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
You apparently missed the two previous posts of mine where I made that quite clear. There is little hard evidence showing K&N reduces engine life by a significant amount.


I didn't miss them. I think there's simply a difference in perspective among us. A filter that doesn't filter as well as another makes it a poorer filter. It doesn't necessarily make it a poor choice for use on a vehicle.

I'll bet there are tires out there that perform better than the ones on your car. That doesn't make your tires terrible. There are probably shoes that are more comfortable than the ones you're wearing. That doesn't make your shoes terrible. There's lunch that's likely more tasty than the one you'll have today. That doesn't make your lunch terrible. There are tradeoffs in everything. A theoretical loss in filtration of a performance filter might not affect the OP's engine life at all, and he gained a better knowledge of how his car works and probably a better appreciation for the way his engine bay was designed and packaged by installing the filter kit.


If they are the worst at doing their intended job, then they are terrible. Terrible is a relative term.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: badtlc
You apparently missed the two previous posts of mine where I made that quite clear. There is little hard evidence showing K&N reduces engine life by a significant amount.


I didn't miss them. I think there's simply a difference in perspective among us. A filter that doesn't filter as well as another makes it a poorer filter. It doesn't necessarily make it a poor choice for use on a vehicle.

I'll bet there are tires out there that perform better than the ones on your car. That doesn't make your tires terrible. There are probably shoes that are more comfortable than the ones you're wearing. That doesn't make your shoes terrible. There's lunch that's likely more tasty than the one you'll have today. That doesn't make your lunch terrible. There are tradeoffs in everything. A theoretical loss in filtration of a performance filter might not affect the OP's engine life at all, and he gained a better knowledge of how his car works and probably a better appreciation for the way his engine bay was designed and packaged by installing the filter kit.


You're wasting your time...it's obvious badtlc would rather argue about semantics than discuss facts...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi

You're wasting your time...it's obvious badtlc would rather argue about semantics than discuss facts...


You have yet to realize I agree with you. That is the best part.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi

You're wasting your time...it's obvious badtlc would rather argue about semantics than discuss facts...


You have yet to realize I agree with you. That is the best part.


So you say, but you continue to argue...me thinks you just like to argue...
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: grampi

You're wasting your time...it's obvious badtlc would rather argue about semantics than discuss facts...


You have yet to realize I agree with you. That is the best part.


So you say, but you continue to argue...me thinks you just like to argue...


I believe an argument requires two folks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top