Should I switch back to paper from K&N?

[stchman]

I have been using a K&N in my engine since almost day 1. I had a UOA performed back at about 20K(I currently have 41K) and it came back good.

I have been hearing that K&N filters kill engines, let in massive amounts of dirt, blah, blah, blah.

My question is, have there been ANY documented cases of K&N air filters actually destroying engines? Are the claims just people saying they "feel" that K&N does not do the job?

I have heard arguments from both sides.

Thanks.

 

[wrcsixeight]

Documented proof?

I doubt it.

All I needed to see was dirt in my throttle body and sparklies when looking through the filter to have me switch back to paper.

Amazing how power and MPG did not take an immediate hit when I switched back either.

 

[Donald]

Why does anyone go to K&N in the first place?

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Why does anyone go to K&N in the first place?


After a little while it is less expensive to own a K&N. The air filter for my truck is like $25(I paid $37 for my K&N), so after a couple of cleanings the air filter is paying for itself.

I didn't buy the K&N thinking that I was going to get 50 more HP with 10 more MPGs, I know it is absurd to think that a K&N is going to turn a regular car into a race car.

 

[Wolf359]

In the old days it was supposed to add more power. Nowadays people stay away because if you over oil them, you get oil on your MAF and that can ruin them or just not make it worth the hassle to clean them.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Treated paper works.

 

[RoadRaceJosh]

I removed the K&N filter that was in my 1998 Honda VFR 800 and replaced it with a new Honda filter to improve filtering efficiency as the engine is not economically rebuildable. The K&N pay back time approaches infinity if you give any value to your time spent cleaning and oiling. They are much better than no air filter and there are times and places where they are much easier to fit than an original air cleaner.

 

[qdeezie]

I recently went back to paper filters from K&N and it seems like my Focus likes the paper more. Note: I also cleaned the MAF. It revs smoother, accelerates better and gets better gas mileage. The K&N was supposed to do that, but the paper got me better results. I'm thinking the K&N and the MAF didn't exactly see eye to eye.

As for documented proof, I have exactly zero. Just my experience.

 

[bmod305]

I used to rebuild dirt track engines-methanol & racing gas SBC. I could tell every time when the owner used a K&N filter-the rings were shot after 18-25 nights vs 40 or more nights with a quality paper filter. I probably rebuilt 75 or more SBC engines and everyone that used a K&N filter was worn more. Just my non-scientific observation.

Dave

 

[Vuflanovsky]

As someone told me, K&Ns might keep a lot of filter elements out of the landfill but, beyond that, their usage might be questionable for the average vehicle.

IMO, you're entering with the precept that it likely won't filter as well as a paper filter and not offer any particular power gain from added flow for most cars. I used one for three years and wasn't concerned with the maintenance of it as much as questioning its filtration upon examining it and the air box. At this point, I'm firmly back with paper filters.

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: bmod305
I used to rebuild dirt track engines-methanol & racing gas SBC. I could tell every time when the owner used a K&N filter-the rings were shot after 18-25 nights vs 40 or more nights with a quality paper filter. I probably rebuilt 75 or more SBC engines and everyone that used a K&N filter was worn more. Just my non-scientific observation.

Dave


Sounds like decent information if you ask me. About 50% increase in wear!

 

[oliveoil]

I have 190k with a cone filter k&n....but don't clean often. I usually let it go over 50k. People are right that initially, and after a cleaning, the filter doesn't filter as well as a paper filter. Yet the more it loads up the better it filters. It's simply a $ decision. Much cheaper and less labor intensive. I'm a fan of K&n.

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: wrcsixeight
Documented proof?

I doubt it.

All I needed to see was dirt in my throttle body and sparklies when looking through the filter to have me switch back to paper.

Amazing how power and MPG did not take an immediate hit when I switched back either.



That's gohst of a filter! Someone is cleaning K&N's with power washer machine? That cloth is totally shot, rotten.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Donald
Why does anyone go to K&N in the first place?

Marketing ?

 

[heyu]

Sure you will get more HP from a K&N but that is all ,

More airflow on a computer controlled engine = MORE FUEL

It is very misleading about increased MPG with one installed

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: wrcsixeight
Documented proof?

I doubt it.

All I needed to see was dirt in my throttle body and sparklies when looking through the filter to have me switch back to paper.

Amazing how power and MPG did not take an immediate hit when I switched back either.



What a ridiculous scare tactic. Lol

 

[CT8]

It is your car do what you want.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: heyu
Sure you will get more HP from a K&N but that is all ,

More airflow on a computer controlled engine = MORE FUEL

It is very misleading about increased MPG with one installed


Only if the factory airbox and filter assembly were undersized, which they usually are not.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: bmod305
I used to rebuild dirt track engines-methanol & racing gas SBC. I could tell every time when the owner used a K&N filter-the rings were shot after 18-25 nights vs 40 or more nights with a quality paper filter. I probably rebuilt 75 or more SBC engines and everyone that used a K&N filter was worn more. Just my non-scientific observation.

Dave


Sounds like decent information if you ask me. About 50% increase in wear!


Yeah, I'll pay that as decent information.

Not quite sure why the OP wants positive proof of the filters "destroying" engines, but it's part of BITOG these days asking for same.

As to what lets the dirt in ....

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

 

[circuitsmith]

Originally Posted By: bmod305
I used to rebuild dirt track engines-methanol & racing gas SBC. I could tell every time when the owner used a K&N filter-the rings were shot after 18-25 nights vs 40 or more nights with a quality paper filter. I probably rebuilt 75 or more SBC engines and everyone that used a K&N filter was worn more.


Lots of dirt in the air on a dirt track, with the cars kicking it up.
Combine that with the lower efficiency of K&N.
So no surprise those engines running wide open ingest a lot of dirt.

As far as a K&N saving money vs replacing paper filters
I think a paper filter plus a restriction gauge to get full use of the filter
is more likely to save money, not to mention time saved on not cleaning or inspecting.