K&N's statement on their filters' ineffectiveness at filtering

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
And yet the vast majority of car enthusiasts think K&N is "better". Every musclecar, offroad, and hot rod show "upgrades" their cars with K&N filters. Every aftermarket focused magazine recommends K&N. Very very few people realize how much their filters suck.

Even though I've used K&N, I'm not a fan of them. I much prefer AFE.

However, I know several people that have used K&N for years in all of their vehicles and have never had any issues with them at all, well past the 100,000 mile mark..

And in most auto related forums across the net, you'll find lots of support for K&N from people that have been using their products for years without any issues whatsoever..

Anecdotal evidence like this makes me think that the reports of K&N's filtering ineffectiveness is exaggerated to say the least..
 
Last edited:

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Even though I've used K&N, I'm not a fan of them. I much prefer AFE.

However, I know several people that have used K&N for years in all of their vehicles and have never had any issues with them at all, well past the 100,000 mile mark..

And in most auto related forums across the net, you'll find lots of support for K&N from people that have been using their products for years without any issues whatsoever..

Anecdotal evidence like this makes me think that the reports of K&N's filtering ineffectiveness is exaggerated to say the least..

Um... too bad it's not anecdotal. Had you bothered to read the reports online, it's pretty clear. In fact, if you didn't have the number of posts you did I'd have thought you were on K&N's payroll as well. Your post has that 'marketing' feel where you just blatently ignore the facts and throw out an opinion in their place.

The tests have been done. They're clear.
 

7window

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,533
1
0
Seems like the argument here is the drop in k&n not the k &n cai? Or Are they both worthless?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Um... too bad it's not anecdotal. Had you bothered to read the reports online, it's pretty clear.

Yeah, everything you read online is 100% fact :rolleyes:

In fact, if you didn't have the number of posts you did I'd have thought you were on K&N's payroll as well. Your post has that 'marketing' feel where you just blatently ignore the facts and throw out an opinion in their place.

Yeah, how dare I defend K&N by stating my observations.. Also, I'm not ignoring the tests.

I'm simply saying that anecdotal evidence cannot be completely ignored. TONS of people have used K&N air filters in their vehicles for years, and haven't had any issues. I'm talking about vehicles with 150,000 miles and up that have used the same filter for their entire life span...

Remember, K&N have been around for a long time, longer than any other high performance air filter company I believe.

If the K&N air filters had such terrible filtering capabilities, then why are they so popular?

Surely the overly meticulous auto enthusiasts that obsess over their vehicles would have caught on to their scam by now right?

The tests have been done. They're clear.

The tests may have been done, but I don't think they're representative of the overall quality of the product.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Even though I've used K&N, I'm not a fan of them. I much prefer AFE.

However, I know several people that have used K&N for years in all of their vehicles and have never had any issues with them at all, well past the 100,000 mile mark..

And in most auto related forums across the net, you'll find lots of support for K&N from people that have been using their products for years without any issues whatsoever..

Anecdotal evidence like this makes me think that the reports of K&N's filtering ineffectiveness is exaggerated to say the least..

What "problems" would you expect? An engine isn't going to explode because it's dirty and wearing faster than normal.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Even though I've used K&N, I'm not a fan of them. I much prefer AFE.

However, I know several people that have used K&N for years in all of their vehicles and have never had any issues with them at all, well past the 100,000 mile mark..

And in most auto related forums across the net, you'll find lots of support for K&N from people that have been using their products for years without any issues whatsoever..

Anecdotal evidence like this makes me think that the reports of K&N's filtering ineffectiveness is exaggerated to say the least..

And they would have done just as well with a couple of good paper filters over that 100K miles...
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Putting it in a DD, YMMV. Not a gamble I want to take.

My Taurus SHO has one in it. It was put in there by my dad during the first filter change. The car has 225K miles. Still idles so smooth you cannot tell it is running. Of course it is a little down on power, but that is to be expected considering the mileage. The power reduction is due to build up on the back of the valves. Last time I had the intake off and cleaned it the car woke right back up.

I don't think you have to worry about a K&N air filter if you take care of it properly. The problem is most people forget completely about the air filter until it is long overdue to be replaced.
 

Apex

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
6,511
1
71
www.gotapex.com
K&N shouldn't be a problem for those driving on-road and doing regular oil changes. If you are using a K&N, I'd suggest going to Blackstone or some other oil analysis company and getting it checked out once in awhile though.

If your wear numbers are out of whack, it may be time to change. :)
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
On a street car, it provides no benefit at all over a good paper filter, and might cause trouble, so why would anyone use one? It's not even cheaper in the long run.
 

HybridSquirrel

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2005
6,161
2
81
On a street car, it provides no benefit at all over a good paper filter, and might cause trouble, so why would anyone use one? It's not even cheaper in the long run.

Because I can put a sticker on my car that says I have a k&n
 

FuzzyDunlop

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2008
3,260
12
81
Anecdotal evidence like this makes me think that the reports of K&N's filtering ineffectiveness is exaggerated to say the least..

Yeah, everything you read online is 100% fact :rolleyes:
Yeah, how dare I defend K&N by stating my observations.. Also, I'm not ignoring the tests.
I'm simply saying that anecdotal evidence cannot be completely ignored. TONSof people have used K&N air filters in their vehicles for years, and haven't had any issues. I'm talking about vehicles with 150,000 miles and up that have used the same filter for their entire life span...
This may be true, but you are presenting no evidence to back up your claim that their vehicles are undamaged from using the filter. The study is ‘simply saying’ with ‘anecdotal evidence’ that one filter is better than the other when it comes to… well… filtering dirt particles..

Remember, K&N have been around for a long time, longer than any other high performance air filter company I believe.
Are you sure about that? They were founded in 1969 – Im betting they aren’t.
Besides, stating how long a company has been in business is completely irrelevant to the quality of their product.

If the K&N air filters had such terrible filtering capabilities, then why are they so popular?
Read the thread. They have EXCELLENT marketing. People buy their filters because they are told they are superior, not because they have seen the proof that they are superior. Seriously, that’s it. Shit, it’s the reason I used to buy them. It says right on the box “K&N Filters: The Worlds Best Air Filter”. Im sucker too – I have one on my car – but I am going to change it out soon after reading that study.

Surely the overly meticulous auto enthusiasts that obsess over their vehicles would have caught on to their scam by now right?
Oh but many of them have. That is why these threads are getting started.

The tests may have been done, but I don't think they're representative of the overall quality of the product.

Exactly. The study was designed to specifically test the air flow rating and filtration capabilities. It never stated anywhere that one product is overall better than the other.
The study was done very well, very fair, and unbiased from what I can see. All filters were put through the exact same scenario, and all we are left with is the raw data to determine our own conclusions.

And what is a Ton of people? 2000 pounds? So like 15-20 people per ton? – lol. jk
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
K&N allows more air through than standard filters, but allows more dust/particles as well. Works great for professional racing where engine rebuilds happen frequently BEFORE the dust/particles would have caused issues.

For street vehicles, it is more expensive and hurts your engine more than a standard air filter. Waste of money and can potentially cause issues with your engine. No reason at all to use it, other than falling for marketing hype.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
Serious ??. So if k & n is that bad, are the other manufacturers the same crap too? The ones that look identical to k & N? Some requires tune after installing cai.
Simply put, there are only a few ways to increase airflow through a filter. Reduce the filtering ability or enlarge the filter. K&N is a drop in, so it isn't magically larger, so what's that leave? (Yes, i'm oversimplifying it, so get off my back!)
Um... too bad it's not anecdotal. Had you bothered to read the reports online, it's pretty clear. In fact, if you didn't have the number of posts you did I'd have thought you were on K&N's payroll as well. Your post has that 'marketing' feel where you just blatently ignore the facts and throw out an opinion in their place.

The tests have been done. They're clear.
exactly
Yeah, everything you read online is 100% fact :rolleyes:



Yeah, how dare I defend K&N by stating my observations.. Also, I'm not ignoring the tests.

I'm simply saying that anecdotal evidence cannot be completely ignored. TONS of people have used K&N air filters in their vehicles for years, and haven't had any issues. I'm talking about vehicles with 150,000 miles and up that have used the same filter for their entire life span...

Remember, K&N have been around for a long time, longer than any other high performance air filter company I believe.

If the K&N air filters had such terrible filtering capabilities, then why are they so popular?

Surely the overly meticulous auto enthusiasts that obsess over their vehicles would have caught on to their scam by now right?



The tests may have been done, but I don't think they're representative of the overall quality of the product.

Sadly, many people often go well past the proper oil change intervals as well and their cars also "still run fine". Would you buy a car with 50-75k on the clock that had one or maybe two oil changes over it's entire driven life? Probably not.....

I'm one of those "overly meticulous auto enthusiasts that obsess over their vehicles" and I threw my K&N in the trash. Oil analysis reports showed a staggering upward trend of contaminants and dirt so I pulled the intake tract apart and found an obscene amount of residue and dirt in my intake and all over my throttle body. I cleaned it all up, changed the oil and went back to an OEM paper filter. Viola, no more residue and dirt in the intake and the oil analysis hasn't looked better.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
Technically...... a filter that has more pleats could have a larger surface area and allow more flow (whether oil or paper)


That being said, K&N is imo a borderline scam. Their claims are outrageous at best, and I would never ever use one in any sort of daily driver or even weekend car.

Hell, even if I had a track vehicle I would not use K&N out of principle.
 

Raizinman

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2007
2,355
75
91
meettomy.site
Does specifically a K&N air filter provide better filtration? Does a K&N air filter give you more MPG? Will a K&N Air filter give you more horsepower?

It’s obvious that people will spend anywhere from $50 to $300 for a K&N air filter all the way up to their High Performance Air Intake Kits on the belief that it will increase MPG and horsepower. Keep in mind, that the auto manufacturers are aware of the K&N air filters and have a much much more extensive research laboratory than K&N, and not one auto manufacturer installs a K&N air filter in their vehicle. Not ONE! In this MPG and horsepower war from one vehicle to another, wouldn’t a manufacturer want to increase its MPG and horsepower by simply installing a K&N or some very similar style air filter? Not ONE manufacturer believes that a K&N air filter will increase MPG or Horsepower!!!

I’ve read probably thousands of threads of people who installed K&N air filters and some claim 10% better MPG and more power. Others claim identical MPG and the ‘SOUND’ of more horsepower, but no real HP benefit. Seems nobody can really state what is happening with the air filter. Are K&N owners having buyer remorse after spending $50 to $300 and just claiming they are getting better MPG and Horsepower to justify this expense?

Why isn’t there an absolute test, to test an air filters efficiency? Well, there is. It is called the ISO 5011 test. If you want to test your Purolator, Baldwin, AC, K&N, or AMSOIL air filters it will cost you about $1700 per filter, to send them in and have them tested. For that price you would have real data about your filter. These ISO 5011 machines cost upwards near $300,000.00.

The ISO 5011 standard (formerly SAE J726) defines a precise filter test using precision measurements under controlled conditions. Temperature & humidity of the test dust and air used in the test are strictly monitored and controlled. To obtain an accurate measure of filter efficiency, it’s very critical to know exactly the amount and size of test dust being fed into the filter during the test. By following the ISO 5011 standards, a filter tested in England can be directly compared to another filter tested in California. The ISO 5011 filter data for each filter is contained in two test reports. Capacity Efficiency and flow restriction.

Without boring you about how the test works, suffice to say they add a controlled amount of dirt to the filter while monitoring its flow capacity. They also monitor the amount of dirt passing through the filter. Various filters were tested being the: AC Delco, Purolator, Baldwin, K&N, and AMSOIL.

Comparing the AC Delco (rated the best from the test results) to the K&N: The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before reaching its max restriction while the K&N and AMSOIL filters each ran for about 24 minutes before reaching their max restriction. Another interesting bit of information is that the AC Delco accumulated 574 gms of dirt and passed only 0.4 gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221 gms of dirt but passed 7.0 gms of dirt. Comparing the K&N to the AC Delco the K&N plugged up nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. The AC Delco filter which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency but also had the highest relative restriction to flow. Obviously the better filtering media is also the most restrictive.

Have you tried taking a K&N air filter right out of the box and compared it to an OEM air filter? Try holding them both up to the light? Which has larger holes that you can see light coming through? It will be the K&N. Get out your magnifying glass and examine both filters again? You can actually see the small holes and gaps in the K&N. Dirty air can get through these holes. Also, try typing into GOOGLE the words ‘K&N Scam’. You don’t get one or two sites, but you get the Corvette Forum, Audi Forum, Nissan Forum, Chevy Forum, Suzuki Forum, BMW Forum, Jeep Association, Ford Ranger Forum, Acura Forum, and on and on and on.

Think logically for a moment. Your engine needs the correct amount of air and gas for combustion to happen. An air filter is not a turbo or super charger and cannot force more air into your engine. To be honest, when studying the K&N website and their research, the visions of the infomercials of the Tornado air intake that PROMISED more HP and more MPG popped up in my head. You can still purchase these Tornados on the Internet, but don’t.

Your engine needs filtered air with as little restriction as possible. That’s a difficult balance to obtain as all air filters start to restrict air flow the more they accumulate dirt. Can this filtration be achieved with an OEM paper filter? Honda and ALL the other car manufacturers believe so. Do you think Honda wants their engines being damaged by a cheap air filter if they didn’t work?

I’m going to stick with the OEM or perhaps an AC Delco air filter. I cannot find any justification for spending $50 to $300 to upgrade to something that not only does not appear to benefit my stock engine, but there appears to be logical rationale not to use it. Honda believes so too. If I spent $300 on a K&N high performance air intake kit, and then spent hours more on the installation, I might become defensive by this article. It’s likely that people with K&N air filters wash them frequently which would minimize the amount of passing dirt. Likewise, the K&N high performance air intake kits do give a stock engine a much more aggressive look when you pop the hood to show off your engine.

Logically, how can adding a K&N air filter ADD more HP? Or give you better MPG when comparing a new K&N to a new OEM air filter? They both pass the same amount of air to make up the 14.7-1 air fuel ratio your vehicle needs. It makes no sense and therefore falls into the same category as the Tornado above.

I also have a problem with dealing with a company who starts out their advertising for their filters claiming wild MPG and HP gains. If they are going to lie to me about that, then who knows what else they are going to lie about. I won't deal with a scam type company.
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
They improve efficiency and power by restricting flow less, not by flowing more air, so no problem with those claims. That's the *true* statement they made in order to distract from the dirt issue.
 

7window

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2009
1,533
1
0
Does specifically a K&N air filter provide better filtration? Does a K&N air filter give you more MPG? Will a K&N Air filter give you more horsepower?

It’s obvious that people will spend anywhere from $50 to $300 for a K&N air filter all the way up to their High Performance Air Intake Kits on the belief that it will increase MPG and horsepower. Keep in mind, that the auto manufacturers are aware of the K&N air filters and have a much much more extensive research laboratory than K&N, and not one auto manufacturer installs a K&N air filter in their vehicle. Not ONE! In this MPG and horsepower war from one vehicle to another, wouldn’t a manufacturer want to increase its MPG and horsepower by simply installing a K&N or some very similar style air filter? Not ONE manufacturer believes that a K&N air filter will increase MPG or Horsepower!!!

I’ve read probably thousands of threads of people who installed K&N air filters and some claim 10% better MPG and more power. Others claim identical MPG and the ‘SOUND’ of more horsepower, but no real HP benefit. Seems nobody can really state what is happening with the air filter. Are K&N owners having buyer remorse after spending $50 to $300 and just claiming they are getting better MPG and Horsepower to justify this expense?

Why isn’t there an absolute test, to test an air filters efficiency? Well, there is. It is called the ISO 5011 test. If you want to test your Purolator, Baldwin, AC, K&N, or AMSOIL air filters it will cost you about $1700 per filter, to send them in and have them tested. For that price you would have real data about your filter. These ISO 5011 machines cost upwards near $300,000.00.

The ISO 5011 standard (formerly SAE J726) defines a precise filter test using precision measurements under controlled conditions. Temperature & humidity of the test dust and air used in the test are strictly monitored and controlled. To obtain an accurate measure of filter efficiency, it’s very critical to know exactly the amount and size of test dust being fed into the filter during the test. By following the ISO 5011 standards, a filter tested in England can be directly compared to another filter tested in California. The ISO 5011 filter data for each filter is contained in two test reports. Capacity Efficiency and flow restriction.

Without boring you about how the test works, suffice to say they add a controlled amount of dirt to the filter while monitoring its flow capacity. They also monitor the amount of dirt passing through the filter. Various filters were tested being the: AC Delco, Purolator, Baldwin, K&N, and AMSOIL.

Comparing the AC Delco (rated the best from the test results) to the K&N: The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before reaching its max restriction while the K&N and AMSOIL filters each ran for about 24 minutes before reaching their max restriction. Another interesting bit of information is that the AC Delco accumulated 574 gms of dirt and passed only 0.4 gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221 gms of dirt but passed 7.0 gms of dirt. Comparing the K&N to the AC Delco the K&N plugged up nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. The AC Delco filter which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency but also had the highest relative restriction to flow. Obviously the better filtering media is also the most restrictive.

Have you tried taking a K&N air filter right out of the box and compared it to an OEM air filter? Try holding them both up to the light? Which has larger holes that you can see light coming through? It will be the K&N. Get out your magnifying glass and examine both filters again? You can actually see the small holes and gaps in the K&N. Dirty air can get through these holes. Also, try typing into GOOGLE the words ‘K&N Scam’. You don’t get one or two sites, but you get the Corvette Forum, Audi Forum, Nissan Forum, Chevy Forum, Suzuki Forum, BMW Forum, Jeep Association, Ford Ranger Forum, Acura Forum, and on and on and on.

Think logically for a moment. Your engine needs the correct amount of air and gas for combustion to happen. An air filter is not a turbo or super charger and cannot force more air into your engine. To be honest, when studying the K&N website and their research, the visions of the infomercials of the Tornado air intake that PROMISED more HP and more MPG popped up in my head. You can still purchase these Tornados on the Internet, but don’t.

Your engine needs filtered air with as little restriction as possible. That’s a difficult balance to obtain as all air filters start to restrict air flow the more they accumulate dirt. Can this filtration be achieved with an OEM paper filter? Honda and ALL the other car manufacturers believe so. Do you think Honda wants their engines being damaged by a cheap air filter if they didn’t work?

I’m going to stick with the OEM or perhaps an AC Delco air filter. I cannot find any justification for spending $50 to $300 to upgrade to something that not only does not appear to benefit my stock engine, but there appears to be logical rationale not to use it. Honda believes so too. If I spent $300 on a K&N high performance air intake kit, and then spent hours more on the installation, I might become defensive by this article. It’s likely that people with K&N air filters wash them frequently which would minimize the amount of passing dirt. Likewise, the K&N high performance air intake kits do give a stock engine a much more aggressive look when you pop the hood to show off your engine.

Logically, how can adding a K&N air filter ADD more HP? Or give you better MPG when comparing a new K&N to a new OEM air filter? They both pass the same amount of air to make up the 14.7-1 air fuel ratio your vehicle needs. It makes no sense and therefore falls into the same category as the Tornado above.

I also have a problem with dealing with a company who starts out their advertising for their filters claiming wild MPG and HP gains. If they are going to lie to me about that, then who knows what else they are going to lie about. I won't deal with a scam type company.


Is this all k &N or just the k&n drop in?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
What "problems" would you expect? An engine isn't going to explode because it's dirty and wearing faster than normal.

I would expect that there would be wide reports by auto enthusiasts of dirty intakes and dirty air ducts. The more meticulous ones that take oil samples and send them to Blackstone would also have noticed heavier build up in the engine oil of certain elements that indicate greater engine wear.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
My Taurus SHO has one in it. It was put in there by my dad during the first filter change. The car has 225K miles. Still idles so smooth you cannot tell it is running. Of course it is a little down on power, but that is to be expected considering the mileage. The power reduction is due to build up on the back of the valves. Last time I had the intake off and cleaned it the car woke right back up.

I'm glad you posted this, as it confirms what I've been saying about multiple reports from actual K&N owners with high mileage vehicles.

The problem is most people forget completely about the air filter until it is long overdue to be replaced.

Or re-oiled. I think some of the issues with K&N could be caused by people not washing and re-oiling it often enough, or when they do, they either over or under oil the filter.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
I'm glad you posted this, as it confirms what I've been saying about multiple reports from actual K&N owners with high mileage vehicles.



Or re-oiled. I think some of the issues with K&N could be caused by people not washing and re-oiling it often enough, or when they do, they either over or under oil the filter.


Except his car is probably down on power due to worn out valve seats and rings from the K&N allowing ~10-15% more dirt I mean airflow into the engine.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
This may be true, but you are presenting no evidence to back up your claim that their vehicles are undamaged from using the filter. The study is ‘simply saying’ with ‘anecdotal evidence’ that one filter is better than the other when it comes to… well… filtering dirt particles..

Here's a thread with a K&N owner of a high mileage vehicle (he's owned the vehicle for 17 yrs) posting the results of his Blackstone oil sample.

Here's another thread in which several K&N owners with high mileage vehicles defend K&N by stating their own individual experiences.

The truth is, that accounts like these can be found all over the internet.

Ronstang, a member here on the forum even posted his own..

Besides, stating how long a company has been in business is completely irrelevant to the quality of their product.

I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevent. Successful companies tend to make products or services that people want to purchase, even at a higher price because it brings them satisfaction.

Read the thread. They have EXCELLENT marketing. People buy their filters because they are told they are superior, not because they have seen the proof that they are superior. Seriously, that’s it. Shit, it’s the reason I used to buy them. It says right on the box “K&N Filters: The Worlds Best Air Filter”. Im sucker too – I have one on my car – but I am going to change it out soon after reading that study.

Marketing can only take you so far. If the K&N filters were so terrible in their filtration abilities to the point where it threatened the life span of a car's engine and it's ability to function at optimal efficiency, people would have picked up on it long ago I think since auto enthusiasts (the people most likely to buy after market air filters) tend to be much more obsessive about their vehicles than the average joe.

Oh but many of them have. That is why these threads are getting started.

I've noticed most of these types of threads get started due to scientific tests of the filter, rather than actual negative personal experiences.

Exactly. The study was designed to specifically test the air flow rating and filtration capabilities. It never stated anywhere that one product is overall better than the other.
The study was done very well, very fair, and unbiased from what I can see. All filters were put through the exact same scenario, and all we are left with is the raw data to determine our own conclusions.

Indeed, and most people prefer to form their own opinions based on their personal experience, rather than scientific tests.

Thats not to say that Scientific tests are invalid of course, because they aren't. But K&N has a long list of users with nothing but positive things to say...
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
You can have a good filter that flows better, but such filters are BIG. The 12" filter I have in my car barely fits in the wheel well and looks like something off a diesel truck.

It's all about surface area, or more specifically the flux or flow per surface area.

Denser media that can only flow so much per inch requires more media to flow the same mass of air while retaining high filtration.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.